Seoul

Representative Director Kim

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

2. Kim Jong-American

Defendants’ Address Young-si

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant New ○○○, such as the attached list, with respect to a vehicle owned by Defendant New ○○○ by Defendant X-ray (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On October 17, 2009, at around 00, Defendant Kim Jong-tae was on the instant vehicle driven by Defendant New ○○, the husband of the instant vehicle, and left the instant vehicle on the road located in the north-west, south-west, the location of the Defendant Kim Young-ri. The Defendant Kim Jong-tae was on the wind that Defendant Kim Young-ri knew that the clothes of Defendant Kim Young-ri were kid on the instant vehicle, and that the Defendant Kim Young-ri was kid on the wind at the time of departure of the instant vehicle, resulting in injury, such as cutting the bones of the bones, cutting the bones of the bones, cutting the bones of the bones, and cutting the mouth of the string.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Party’s assertion

(1) Plaintiff 1,

Defendant Kim Jong-tae, as the spouse of Defendant NewO, the registered insured of the instant insurance contract, was driving the instant vehicle with Defendant NewO, and the Defendant New○○ entered into a special agreement for limited driving of married couple drivers by reflecting this even at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract. Therefore, Defendant Kim Jong-C does not constitute “other person” under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as an operator who has the operating control and operating profit of the instant vehicle, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds (personal compensation I) to the Defendants based on the instant insurance contract.

(2) Defendant

The instant vehicle is a vehicle operated entirely by Defendant ○○○○, and Defendant Kim Jong-tae was merely accompanied by the instant vehicle for eating at the time of the instant accident, and did not have a driving interest or control over the instant vehicle. Therefore, the instant vehicle constitutes “other person” under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. Determination

The term "other person" as referred to in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to "a person who operates a motor vehicle under his/her control and other person than the driver of the motor vehicle in question". Thus, even if one of multiple operators who exist in the same motor vehicle suffers damage to the motor vehicle accident in question, such operator cannot assert that he/she is another person as provided in Article 3 of the same Act even if he/she suffered damage to the motor vehicle accident in question, the other operator who suffered the accident cannot assert that he/she is the other operator in question. It can be argued that he/she is a third person only when he/she seems to have been able to prevent the occurrence of the accident by the other party because he/she was more led or directly and specifically appearing compared to operational control and operational profit of the operator who suffered the accident in question (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da32840, Oct. 6, 200).

As to this case, according to the above recognized evidence, Defendant Kim Young-soo could recognize the fact that he was the spouse of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the fact that Defendant ○○○ entered into an electronic limited driving agreement with the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, on the other hand, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as having comprehensively taken account of the above recognized evidence Nos. 2 and 3, 4-1 through 5, 6-1 through 5, are that it was difficult to recognize that Defendant ○○○○ was the owner of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and that Defendant ○○○○ was directly driving of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and that it was difficult to recognize that Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ was an automobile that was directly and directly in charge of the instant accident, other than the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, based on the circumstances that it was difficult for Defendant ○○○○ to directly use the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the plaintiff bears the defendant's obligation to pay insurance money (personal compensation I) based on the insurance contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.