B. The case holding that, under the interpretation of the general terms of automobile insurance, the borrower is only the insured and is not included in the "third party" under Article 682 of the Commercial Act (negative)

(b) The case holding that since the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance include "the person who is driving an automobile for the insured" as well as the "the person who is driving an automobile for the insured" in addition to the insured specified in the insurance policy, the principal driver of the automobile comprehensive insurance is only "the insured" and is not included in "the third party" as stipulated in Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 682 of the Commercial Code provides that if the loss caused by an insured event is caused by the act of a policyholder or a third party who is not the insured, the insurer who paid the insured amount acquires the right of the policyholder or the insured to the third party, so if the person who caused the insured event falls under the "insured" other than the "third party" prescribed by the above law, the insurer cannot exercise the right of subrogation against the insured event.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the defendant, who is the non-party Lee Won-hee's driver, was included in the concept of the above insured at around 01:00 on November 12, 1987, and was in possession of the plaintiff Lee Won-hee and caused an accident that the non-party 8Da5690's driver was involved in the plaintiff's comprehensive automobile insurance, and was in possession of the plaintiff's automobile accident, which caused the non-party 8Da5690's driver's failure to drive the above cargo, and the plaintiff's comprehensive automobile insurance policyholder's damage compensation, which caused the plaintiff's loss to the non-party 1, who was in possession of the accident, due to the accident, caused the accident that caused the non-party 1's accident to fall under the plaintiff's general automobile insurer's damages claim against the above plaintiff 1, the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's 2, who was the plaintiff's plaintiff's insurer of this case's damages claim against the above plaintiff 1, "."

In light of the records, since the defendant is the insured under the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance of the plaintiff who subscribed to the accident vehicle of this case, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff cannot exercise the right of subrogation against the defendant under Article 682 of the Commercial Act is proper, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 682 of the Commercial Act or the purport of Article 11 of the plaintiff's general terms and conditions of automobile insurance, or incomplete deliberation or omission of reasoning as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)