Plaintiff (Law Firm Vindication, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

October 13, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Da272511 Decided March 7, 2006

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,092,670 won with 5% interest per annum from April 10, 2004 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day until the full payment is made.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

A. On May 13, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the automobiles owned by Nonparty 2 (vehicle No. 1 omitted) (hereinafter “automobile”) from May 13, 1998 to May 13, 1999, with respect to which the insurance period is from May 13, 1998 to May 13, 1999, and the liability insurance premium out of the insurance premium shall be paid in lump sum, and the remainder of the insurance premium shall be paid in installments twice. The amount of KRW 406,040 in installments shall be paid on the date of the contract, and the amount of KRW 270,700 in installments shall be paid by October 13, 1998.

B. Article 3 of the Clause on Special Payment of Insurance Premiums under the instant insurance contract is as follows.

(1) If the policyholder fails to pay the premium in installments on or after the second installment by the agreed payment date, the maximum payment period shall be 30 days from the agreed payment date (Paragraph 1).

When the installment premium is not paid within the payment peremptory period under Paragraph (1), the insurance contract shall be terminated from 24 p.m. on the date on which the payment peremptory period expires (paragraph (2)).

Article 27(1)(3) of the Act provides that if the policyholder fails to pay the installment premium by the agreed date of payment, the company shall notify in writing the policyholder and the named insured of the contents of paragraphs (1) and (2) prior to the expiration of the maximum period of payment

C. Nonparty 2 did not pay the insurance premium in two installments by October 13, 1998. On October 23, 1998, the Plaintiff sent to Nonparty 2 a notice of the maximum payment of automobile premium and the termination of the contract (hereinafter “instant mail”) by mail proving the content of the contract, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay the insurance premium in two installments by November 12, 1998, and if the insurance premium is not paid in two installments by the above payment date, the instant insurance contract shall be terminated from 24:00 of the above payment date and shall not receive insurance benefit after the termination of the contract.”

D. On October 26, 1998, Nonparty 1 visited Chang-dong, Chang-dong, Chang-gu, the residence of Nonparty 2, for the delivery of the instant postal items. Nonparty 1, who was unable to deliver the said postal items due to Nonparty 2’s absence of all his family members, entered Nonparty 2 in the column of the recipient of the original registry of the delivery certificate of a registered postal item as if Nonparty 2 received the said postal items directly, and entered Nonparty 2 in the column of non-party 2 “(resident registration number omitted)” in the column of non-public document preparation ( Accordingly, Nonparty 1 became final and conclusive upon being sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 as an offense of false document preparation).

E. Meanwhile, at around 16:35 on March 13, 1999, Nonparty 3, the wife of Nonparty 2, was driving the instant vehicle and was driving at a point 287.8 km on the upstream road north-gu, Daegu-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul-gu, which caused Nonparty 4’s vehicle (vehicle number 2 omitted) due to Non-Party 4’s failure to drive, and again caused an accident to shock the cross-city bus (vehicle number 3 omitted) of Non-Party 5’s driver (hereinafter “instant accident”), and accordingly, Nonparty 3 suffered injury, such as brain.

F. However, prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff refused to pay the insurance money on the ground that the instant insurance contract was terminated, and Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the insurance money under the instant insurance contract on January 22, 2001 (hereinafter “former lawsuit”).

G. In the previous litigation, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 prepared a false ledger of the delivery certificate of registered mail, so it cannot be deemed that the instant mail reached Nonparty 2, and thus, the Plaintiff’s judgment in favor of Nonparty 2 became final and conclusive (Seoul District Court Decision 2002Na7453, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5130, Apr. 9, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5130, Apr. 9, 2004) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to demand and terminate the contract against Nonparty 2 was invalid.

2. The party's assertion as to the cause of the instant claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the course of Nonparty 1’s duty of delivering the instant postal item while Nonparty 1 was performing the duty of delivering it, the Plaintiff was unable to terminate the instant insurance contract by preparing a false delivery certificate ledger as if Nonparty 2 received the said postal item directly by himself. As a result, Nonparty 2, etc. caused damages to Nonparty 35,092,670 won in total with insurance money, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages under the State Compensation Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The instant case constitutes a case where Nonparty 1, who is the cause of collection, lost or damaged the instant mail, and thus, only a claim for compensation can be made pursuant to Article 38 of the former Postal Service Act (amended by Act No. 7446 of Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter “former Postal Service Act”), and the claim for compensation under the State Compensation Act is not allowed.

3. Determination

A. Limited interpretation of the relevant provisions of the former Postal Service Act

(1) The former Postal Service Act

㈎ 구 우편법은 우편역무를 국가가 의무적으로 제공하는 기본우편역무( 제14조 )와 기본우편역무에 부가하거나 부수하여 제공하는 부가우편역무( 제15조 )로 나누어 규정하면서 그 우편요금이나 수수료도 각기 달리 규정하고 있다.

㈏ 또한 구 우편법 제38조 는, ‘정부는 발송된 우편물이 아래의 경우에 해당하는 경우에는 그 손해를 배상하고, 그 배상금액은 정보통신부령으로 정한다’고 규정하고 있다.

(1) Where mail which records and handles the handling process in the supply of extra postal services is lost or damaged.

(2) Where mail which handles insurance in the supply of extra postal services is lost or damaged.

(3) Where a postal item that handles cash collection in the supply of extra postal services is delivered to an addressee without receiving a collection amount.

(4) Where any other extra postal services are prescribed by Presidential Decree.

㈐ 그리고 구 우편법 제42조 는 ‘ 제38조 의 규정에 의한 손해배상을 청구할 수 있는 자는 당해 우편물의 발송인 또는 그 승인을 얻은 수취인으로 한다’고 규정하고 있고, 같은 법 제43조 는 ‘ 제38조 의 규정에 의한 배상은 우편물을 발송한 날로부터 1년 내에 청구하지 않으면 그 청구권이 소멸한다’고 규정하고 있다.

㈑ 한편 이 사건에서 문제되고 있는 ‘내용증명’은, ‘등기취급’을 전제로 우체국 창구 또는 전산망을 통하여 발송인이 수취인에게 어떤 내용의 문서를 언제 발송하였다는 사실을 우체국이 증명하는 특수취급제도로서, 구 우편법 제15조 , 구 우편법시행규칙(2004. 7. 6. 정보통신부령 제151호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 구 우편법 시행규칙이라고 한다) 제25조 제1항 제4호 에 해당하는 부가우편역무이고, ‘등기취급’ 역시 우편물의 취급과정을 기록에 의하여 명확히 하는 우편물의 특수취급제도로서, 구 우편법 제15조 , 구 우편법 시행규칙 제25조 제1항 제1호 에 해당하는 부가우편역무이다.

【Restriction on the Scope of Application

㈎ 공평하고 적정한 우편역무를 제공함으로써 공공의 복지증진에 기여하고자 하는 구 우편법의 제정목적( 제1조 )을 달성하기 위해서는 한정된 인원과 비용의 제약이라는 조건 속에서도 매일 수많은 우편물을 송달거리의 멀고 가까움이나 교통수단의 지역 편차에 관계없이 원활·신속하게 그것도 저렴한 가격으로 공평하게 배달하여야만 할 것이다.

㈏ 그런데 만약 국가가 우편물의 처리과정에서 생길 수 있는 각종 사고 전부에 대하여 민법이나 국가배상법이 정한 원칙에 따라 손해배상을 하여야 한다면 그로 인한 경제적 부담이 매우 클 뿐만 아니라 천차만별의 사고유형 및 손해에 관하여 그 배상을 요구하는 사람들에게 일일이 개별적으로 대응하기 위해 국가로서는 채무불이행 또는 불법행위에 해당하는 사실 유무의 확정이나 그 손해액 확정을 위해 많은 노력과 비용이 소요될 것이고, 그 결과 투하된 경제적 비용을 전보하기 위한 후속조치로서 필연적으로 우편요금이나 수수료의 대폭적인 인상이 불가피하여, 종국적으로는 구 우편법 제정 목적을 달성할 수 없게 될 것이다.

㈐ 특히 기본우편역무의 기록취급 등 특수취급을 하는 부가우편역무( 구 우편법 제15조 제1항 제1호 )는 우편물의 인수 및 배달에 관하여 기록을 함으로써 우편물이 적정한 절차에 따라 확실하게 배달되도록 하는 것이고, 발송인은 이에 대하여 특별요금을 부담하는 것이므로, 통상의 직무규범에 따라 업무집행이 이루어지는 한 우편물의 망실, 배달지연 등 사고발생의 대부분은 방지될 것이나, 우편업무종사자의 경과실에 의한 불법행위로 인한 손해의 발생은 불가피한 일이므로, 이러한 경우에는 국가의 손해배상책임을 면제 또는 제한하는 것은 불가피하다.

㈑ 그러나 우편종사자의 고의 또는 중대한 과실에 의한 불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생하게 되는 일은 통상의 직무규범에 따라 업무집행이 이루어지고 있는 한 극히 예외적인 경우에 그칠 것이므로, 그러한 예외적인 경우에까지 국가의 손해배상책임을 면제 또는 제한하여야만 구 우편법에서 정한 목적을 달성할 수 있게 된다고는 보기 어렵고, 그러한 면제 또는 제한이 합리적이라고 볼 만한 사정도 없다.

㈒ 따라서 앞서 본 바와 같은 국가의 책임을 제한 또는 면책하는 내용의 구 우편법상의 손해배상 규정은 부가우편역무에 해당하는 우편물을 취급하는 우편업무종사자의 경과실에 의한 불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생한 경우에만 적용되고, 우편업무종사자의 고의 또는 중대한 과실에 의한 불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생한 경우에는 구 우편법에 규정된 손해배상규정이 적용되지 아니하고 민법상의 채무불이행 또는 불법행위로 인한 손해배상규정 또는 국가배상법상의 손해배상규정이 적용된다고 해석함이 상당하다.

B. In the instant case

(1) As seen earlier, content certification is premised on “registration”. In principle, a registered mail shall be delivered to the place indicated on the surface of the mail and shall be delivered upon confirmation of receipt from the addressee and his/her ward (Article 31 of the former Postal Service Act and Article 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19008, Aug. 19, 2005)).

In addition, according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, when the registered mail is received, a receipt of the special mail recorded with the sender shall be issued (Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act), and the confirmation of receipt at the time of delivery of the registered mail shall be made by the receiver on the special mail delivery certificate: Provided, That if the recipient is not the principal, the name of the recipient and his relation with the principal shall be recorded and the witness shall be made (Article 28 of the former Enforcement Rule of

If it is impossible to deliver the registered mail due to the absence of the recipient, the notice of arrival of the mail shall be issued and notified to the arrival of the mail by preparing and receiving the notice of arrival of the mail, and the method of receiving the mail directly with the time and time scheduled for the second visit and the post office shall be notified (Detailed rules for postal service).

She, however, Nonparty 1 did not perform his duties in accordance with the above duty norms, and furthermore, Nonparty 2, the addressee of the instant postal item, prepared a false ledger of the delivery of registered postal items as if he received the instant postal items, and actively pretended that Nonparty 2 received the said postal items.

Therefore, the non-party 1 violated his duty intentionally or by gross negligence in performing the delivery service of the mail of this case, and in the end, in this case, the State Compensation Act shall not be applied to the case of the former Postal Service Act.

Fidelity also, Nonparty 1’s preparation of the original register of delivery of registered mail as seen earlier in the course of performing the delivery of the instant mail can be deemed to be closely related to Nonparty 1’s duty act, and there is a proximate causal relation between the act of preparing such false official document and the Plaintiff’s damage.

Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 35,092,670 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 10, 2004 until September 21, 2005, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, until full payment is made from the following day.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ba-so (Presiding Judge)