[공제금][공1991.5.1.(895),1157]
(a) In the event that the consolidated mutual-aid agreement of the National Freight Trucking Services Federation, the Federation of Associations, and the Mutual-Aid Association provides that “any damage caused by an intentional act of a partner or an employee related to an automobile” shall not be compensated, whether the intentional act is included in
(b) The case holding that the accident that occurred while the driver of the above mutual-aid vehicle was carrying the victim on board opened the entrance of the vehicle and opened and opened the entrance of the vehicle the victim caused by indecent act by force against the driver, and the accident does not constitute the damage caused by the driver or the employee related to the motor vehicle;
A. The terms and conditions of the integrated mutual aid agreement of the Federation of Trucking Transport Services, the Federation of Korea, and the Federation of Trucking Transport Services, stipulate that the liability for damages caused by an automobile accident is similar to a kind of liability insurance, and the liability insurance is a non-life insurance that covers the legal liability of the insured, and the legal liability that is the subject of an insurance accident is a tort, and therefore, in such a case, what is the insurance accident should be determined in accordance with the legal principles of tort. Since the legal principles of tort seem to be one of the intentional intent, barring any special circumstances, the intention under the above mutual aid agreement shall be interpreted to include the willful negligence.
B. While the driver of a mutual-aid vehicle operates the vehicle while driving the vehicle with the victim who is a second-year life on board, the victim demanded the driver to find out his/her intention to arrest or force indecent act by force, but if the driver refused to comply with the demand, he/she as he/she failed to comply with it, he/she opened the remainder of right-hand right-hand door and opened up his/her escape from the roadside and died due to cerebrovassis, it cannot be readily concluded that the above driver had intentional intention on the death of the victim due to the fall.
Article 659 of the Commercial Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act
Limited Partnership Partnership Inter-Korean Cargo
Attorney Cho Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na27377 delivered on October 26, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the "damage caused by the intentional act of a member or an employee related to a motor vehicle" is not compensated for the "damage" under Articles 3 (1) and 10 (1) of the Integrated Mutual Aid Clause applicable to the accident of this case based on its macroficial evidence. This is limited to the case where the accident of this case itself is caused by the intentional act of a person stipulated in the above provision. According to the macroficial evidence, the court of first instance rejected the defendant's defense of exemption from liability for the claim of the mutual aid in this case since the death accident of the deceased cannot be deemed as an accident caused by the intention of the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's employee, who is a passenger, and the non-party 1 who operated the copy truck of this case, who is the second year life of this case, had the intention to force the act by indecent act
In light of the records, the mutual aid contract of this case, the purport of which is to compensate for damages caused by a motor vehicle accident, is a kind of liability insurance, and liability insurance is a non-life insurance which covers the legal liability of the insured, and the legal liability which is the subject of an insurance accident is a tort, so in this case, what is an insurance accident should be determined in accordance with the legal principles of tort, in principle. Since the legal theory of tort seems to be one form of intention, the intention of the above mutual aid agreement shall be interpreted as including doluence and negligence, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, we agree with the theory of lawsuit on this issue.
However, according to the facts and records of the court below, at around 20:15 on October 17, 1988, Nonparty 1, the driver of the accident of this case, who is the driver of the accident of this case, was driving the vehicle of this case and carrying the non-party 1 (victim) who is two years old, while driving the vehicle of this case. On the same day, at around 20:25 on the same day, the victim demanded that the victim be aware of his intention to arrest or force indecent act by force in the operation direction of the vehicle of this case and the attitude of the non-party 1, etc., but the above victim did not comply with this, and the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case where the above victim was opened with the other right-hand right-hand door of the vehicle of this case and died due to brain dysing, etc., and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense of discharge on the ground that the death accident of this case cannot be seen as an accident caused by the non-party 1's intentional act is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)