[채무부존재확인][공1992.11.15.(932),2983]
(a) The case holding that if A registered car under the name of B and registered an insured person Eul as an insured person even after the car was insured person Eul, Byung went a car upon Gap's request and went to the heart, and the accident occurred during the unauthorized Operation, and Gap impliedly went to the operation of Byung, it cannot be deemed that Eul lost its operational identity under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
B. Whether only one-time commercial transport constitutes “damage caused by an accident resulting from the continuous or repeated use or lease of an insured motor vehicle for the purpose of charge or compensation” under the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract (negative)
A. The case holding that Eul cannot be deemed to have lost its operational nature under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act if Gap et al. was involved in the vehicle operation without demanding the return of the vehicle, even though Eul et al. registered the car under Eul's name and entered the automobile comprehensive insurance policy, but Gap et al. was in flight with Eul and Eul, knowing Eul and Eul were well aware of Gap and Eul, used the above vehicle's key to the above vehicle, left the above vehicle in his own name and went back to Kim Fed Kimb in his own heart with his own heart, and Byung et al. was involved in the accident while driving the above vehicle in Busan, and Byung asked Byung for the vehicle without demanding the return of the vehicle.
(b) One-time commercial transport does not constitute “damage caused by an accident” under Article 10(1)7 of the Terms and Conditions of the General Automobile Insurance Contract in respect of which the insured motor vehicle has been continuously or repeatedly used or leased for the purpose of fare or consideration.
(a) Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;
Shindong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Busan High Court Decision 91Na10824 delivered on June 5, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
As determined by the court below, Non-party 1 registered his car in the name of the defendant and entered the plaintiff company's comprehensive automobile insurance company as the defendant, and the non-party 2, who was aware of the above non-party 1 and the defendant and was traveling the above vehicle with the above vehicle's key, left the above vehicle from the above non-party 1 and went to Kimb in his own name and left the above vehicle in his heart, and the accident of this case occurred during the operation of the above vehicle, and the above non-party 2 did not request the above non-party 1 to return the vehicle, even though the above non-party 2 asked the above non-party 1 to buy the vehicle without the above unauthorized operation, it cannot be deemed that the defendant lost the operational nature under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Accordingly, the court below's decision is just and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or rules of evidence as pointed out.
In addition, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above non-party 2 was engaged in commercial transport with 10,000 won in operating the above vehicle based on its evidence, and determined that the single-time commercial transport alone does not constitute "damage caused by an accident caused by the continuous or repeated use or lease of the insured motor vehicle for the purpose of charge or compensation" under Article 10 (1) 7 of the Clause of the General Automobile Insurance Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and rejected the plaintiff's claim for exemption in light of the records, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.
All arguments are without merit.
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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)