beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2006.11.9.선고 2006가단83991 판결

채무부존재확인

Cases

2006 Ghana 83991 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

Plaintiff

100 Fire, Marine Insurance Corporation

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Defendant

Kim 00 (790324 - 1)

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 28, 2006

Imposition of Judgment

November 9, 2006

Text

1. It is confirmed that there is no injury insurance obligation of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in relation to the insurance contract for business cars listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff Company entered into an insurance contract for business cars with Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 80, Daegu ** * (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with respect to the insured vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), with respect to the insurance period from April 15, 2005 to April 15, 2006, with respect to the insurance period, from April 15, 2005 to April 15, 2006.

B. On June 2, 2005, the Defendant, an employee of Gangnam 00, was involved in a traffic accident while driving the instant vehicle, but the medical expenses for the Defendant were paid as medical care benefits in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation and actually borne by the Defendant.

C. The terms and conditions of automobile insurance, which are the terms and conditions of the instant contract, are that when the insured requires medical treatment as a direct result of the injury suffered in the event of a self-physical accident, the medical expenses actually spent are paid as the injury insurance amount.

D. Meanwhile, although the automobile insurance terms and conditions were to pay the actual medical expenses with the injury insurance money, the provisions of the terms and conditions clearly stipulate that the insured shall compensate for the actual losses incurred by the insured, etc. due to the injury insurance money, thereby preventing double payment of medical expenses to the insured, etc. by claiming the amount of the expenses borne by the Corporation after the health insurance treatment or by claiming medical expenses after the industrial accident treatment.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 6-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the "medical expenses" in which the plaintiff is liable to pay is the medical expenses that have not been treated as industrial accident or are actually borne by the insured, etc., and the medical expenses paid by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service as medical care benefits are not included in the medical expenses actually spent, and there is no medical expenses that the defendant bears in addition to the medical expenses treated as medical care benefits, and thus, the plaintiff does not have the injury insurance money

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserts that “actual medical expenses” and “the purpose of the amendment of the terms and conditions is not stated in the literal sense because the meaning of the actual medical expenses is not clear, and if the meaning of the terms and conditions is not clear, they should be interpreted in favor of customers. Therefore, the actual medical expenses should also be included in the terms and conditions. However, without considering the intent of each party to a contract or specific circumstances, the contents of the terms and conditions should be based on the average customer’s understanding possibility, but should be objectively and uniformly interpreted in consideration of the overall interests of the insurance organization. The interpretation is not only a grammatic meaning of the contents of the terms and conditions, but also an objective and uniform interpretation, such as the intent to express in the door, the purport or progress of the amendment of the terms and conditions not stated in the terms and conditions. In light of these circumstances, “the actual medical expenses” of the terms and conditions do not include the medical expenses paid directly by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and it is reasonable to interpret the terms and conditions directly paid by the insured, etc., and such interpretation does not seem to be a case of the Defendant’s assertion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of absence of injury insurance money against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Suh Jeong-hee

Site of separate sheet

A person shall be appointed.