[채무부존재확인·보험금][공2002.3.1.(149),452]
[1] The intent of the special agreement on driving security of another motor vehicle
[2] Whether the fact-finding and the determination of ratio are the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court (affirmative)
[1] According to the "Special Conditions for Operation of Motor Vehicles automatically applicable to the case where an accident insurance is covered by an accident insurance policy among the personal automobile insurance," the insurer shall be deemed as an insured motor vehicle under the ordinary terms and conditions and shall compensate as stipulated in the ordinary terms and conditions when the insured legally liable for damage due to a personal accident or a physical accident that occurred in the course of driving another motor vehicle or suffered damage due to a substitute accident or a substitute accident, and as an insured motor vehicle under the ordinary terms and conditions. The purpose of this special agreement is to promote the convenience of the insured and at the same time to relieve the victim of an accident by expanding the accident insurance for the insured's temporary driving of a motor vehicle other than an insured motor vehicle, the insurer shall not be the insured motor vehicle, but shall be deemed to be the insured motor vehicle, and to be the same insurance as in the case of liability for damages arising in respect of the insured motor vehicle.
[2] The fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case falls under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.
[1] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da1466 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 193) Supreme Court Decision 95Da17267 delivered on July 25, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2955) Supreme Court Decision 98Da50586 delivered on January 21, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 470) Supreme Court Decision 98Da38623 delivered on February 22, 200 (Gong200Sang, 771)
Han Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney In-bok, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)
Seoul High Court Decision 200Na62492, 62508 delivered on September 4, 200
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing
The lower court acknowledged the fact that Nonparty 1, while driving the instant vehicle, caused a traffic accident on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) was the victim of the injury as indicated in its reasoning.
Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the fact-finding of the driver of the above vehicle by the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, etc. The ground of appeal on this point is rejected.
2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to other motor vehicle driving security agreement
According to the "other special terms and conditions of automobile driving security" which automatically applies to the case of an accident insurance for non-life insurance among personal automobile insurance, the insurer shall regard the other automobile driven by the insured as an insured automobile Class II, a substitute and a self-physical accident clause and compensate the insured in accordance with the common terms and conditions when the insured legally is liable for damage or is damaged due to a personal accident or a substitute accident which occurred while driving another automobile, and the insured shall be considered as an insured automobile under the general terms and conditions. This special terms and conditions aim to ensure the convenience of the insured by expanding the accident insurance for the insured while temporarily driving an automobile other than an insured automobile, and at the same time to relieve the victim of the accident. Therefore, other automobile driven by the insured is not the insured automobile, but to be regarded as the insured automobile, and to protect the insured as the same insurance as the case of liability for damages arising with respect to the insured automobile.
The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the purport of the special agreement on motor vehicle driving security, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the special agreement on motor vehicle driving security. The ground of appeal on this point is dismissed. It is so decided that the plaintiff is liable for damages because the non-party 1, the insured of the plaintiff (the counter-party 2; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") caused a traffic accident while driving the motor vehicle of this case owned by the non-party 2, who was his birth, caused the damage to the defendant. The plaintiff is liable for damages in accordance with the special agreement on other motor vehicle driving security.
3. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to offsetting negligence
If the victim is negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damage in a damage compensation case due to a tort, it must be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, the fact-finding or determining the ratio of comparative negligence in a damage compensation case due to a tort belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da1466, Nov. 26, 1993; 98Da38623, Feb. 22, 2000); and examining relevant evidence in light of the records, the fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence cannot be deemed as considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point shall not be accepted.
4. Conclusion
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 on the bench.
Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)