[1] The meaning of the acceptance insured under the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance

[2] Criteria for the insured to claim that the insured person is "other person" under the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Comprehensive Insurance in the event that the insured person himself/herself suffered from a traffic accident caused by an insured motor vehicle

[3] The meaning of the provisions of the former General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance and the case where "the insured who has a liability for compensation shall not be compensated for any loss caused by the insured" can claim its exemption from liability

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to reduce the amount of loss to be borne by the named insured in consideration of the degree of operating control and operating profit of the insured insured's accident vehicle and negligence in the occurrence of the accident, in case where the named insured was damaged by the accident caused by the insured, but can be asserted that he is another person under the general terms and conditions of the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance

[1] The case holding that since Article 11 of the former General Terms and Conditions of Insurance of Automobile for Business (amended by Act No. 1994, Aug. 1, 199) provides that the insured shall not be limited to the registered insured and shall be referred to as the "person who uses or manages the insured automobile with the consent of the registered insured under subparagraph 3", and the so-called "the consented insured" shall also be entitled to the compensation for damages suffered by the insured due to the insured's accident in the course of possession, use, or management of the insured automobile, and Article 9 provides that the insured shall be entitled to the compensation for damages arising from legal liability due to the insured's use or management of the insured automobile with the consent of the registered insured, and the "the person who uses or manages the insured vehicle" shall be referred to as the "the person who is in the legal position at the time of the use or management of the insured vehicle" shall not be referred to as the "person who actually used or manages the insured automobile," but shall also include the victim's control over the insured vehicle from the place of the concrete pumps after its entry into the place of the concrete.

[2] In a case where there are multiple insured persons liable for damages due to the same car accident, and one of them claims damages against another insured person due to the same car accident, the insured who suffered the accident may assert that the insured person is another person under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, if it appears that the insured person was more leading or directly, and could easily prevent the occurrence of the accident than the latter's operational control and operational profit. In such a case, when the insured person is liable for damages against the insurer, the insured person who suffered the accident is "a third person under Article 9 of the former General Automobile Insurance Clause (amended by Act No. 480, Aug. 1994)".

[3] Article 10 (2) 3 of the former General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Business Motor Vehicles (amended by Act No. 1994, Aug. 3, 199) provides that "the insured or his parents, spouse, and children who are liable for compensation shall not be compensated if they die or die," and "the insured who is liable for compensation" refers to the case where the insured who died or dies is liable for compensation if there is another victim due to the same accident due to the reason that there is an operator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Guarantee Act or a reason attributable to the accident. The insurer cannot claim the exemption from liability only for the reason that the victim is the insured, and the insured cannot claim the exemption from liability only for the reason that the insured is the consent insured, and if there is no other victim, the insured cannot claim the exemption from liability based on the indemnity clause.

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to reduce the amount of damages to be borne by the other party in light of the fairness and equity of the burden of damages and the principle of good faith in the case where the other party insured can assert that the other party insured person is a third party under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because it is more leading or directly and specifically expressed the other party insured person compared with the latter's operational control and operational profit, and it is in violation of the basic purpose of the compensation system, which is the guiding principle of fair and fair burden of damages, since the insured person who suffered the accident bears the responsibility of compensation for all damages caused by the accident to the other party insured person.

[1] Article 11 subparagraph 3 of the former General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Motor Vehicles (amended by August 194) / [2] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 9 (1) 1 of the former General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Motor Vehicles / [3] Article 10 (2) 3 of the former General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Motor Vehicles / [4] Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da56791 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1969) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da4613 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2668) / [2/4] Supreme Court Decision 91Da42388, 42395 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 103) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Da1879 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1535) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da31784 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992, 194; 197Da31964 delivered on April 16, 197

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in charge of the same law office)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na42665 delivered on February 6, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff, the non-party 1 was merely a person who used or managed the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1''''''''' and non-party 2''''''''''''s non-party 1'''''''s non-party 1's non-party 1'''''''s non-party 3'''''''''' and's non-party 1's non-party 1'''''''''''''''s non-party 2''''''''''''s non-party 2'''s non-party 1'the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'the defendant 1's non-party 1's.

B. As duly admitted by the court below, the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Business Motor Vehicles (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1994, Aug. 1, 1994) which had been in force at the time of the accident in this case stipulate that Article 11 does not limit the insured to the registered insured, and stipulates that "any person who uses or manages an insured motor vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under subparagraph 3" and the so-called "the approved insured" as one of the insured, and Article 9 provides that the insured shall be liable for damages caused by the insured's death or injury caused by the insured motor vehicle caused by the insured's accident in the course of its use and management, and therefore, the approved insured is a person who uses or manages the insured motor vehicle with the consent of the registered insured and is legally liable for damages if he dies or causes the death or injury to another person due to the insured's accident in the course of its use and management, and the "the insured" use or management of the insured motor vehicle" does not necessarily mean only the insured motor vehicle actually use or management, but also includes the control of the insured motor vehicle under social norms.

According to the records, on May 7, 194, the plaintiff 1 purchased the above concrete pumps from the above non-party 1, the land owner, and leased rent of 200,00 won from the above non-party 3, which is its own use. On the same day, the above non-party 3 used the above concrete pumps to enter the above construction site and enter the above construction site, but it was possible for the above non-party 3 to stop the above concrete pumps under the non-party 1's direction to use the above concrete pumps at the above construction site. But it was possible for the above non-party 3 to newly build the above concrete pumps at the above construction site and let the above non-party 3 stop the above concrete pumps at the above construction site and let it enter the above construction site. Thus, it was possible for the above non-party 3 to find out the above part of the concrete pumps.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the above plaintiff did not have used and managed the concrete pumps of this case for the reasons stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the consent insured under the above insurance terms.

C. However, in a case where multiple insured persons are liable for damages due to the same automobile accident and one of them claim damages against another person due to their own damage, if it appears that the other party insured could easily prevent the occurrence of the accident, compared to the operating control and operating profit of the insured who suffered the accident, the insured who suffered the accident can assert that the other party insured is another person provided for in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. In such a case, the other party can claim damages against the insurer as "the third party provided for in Article 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance" if the other party is liable for damages caused by the above accident against the insurer, and it can be easily asserted that the other party is the owner of the above concrete pumps of this case or the non-party concrete owner of this case or the non-party concrete owner of this case's specific relation with the above defendant's operation profit of the above specific owner or non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the owner of the above concrete pumps of this case.

In addition, Article 10 (2) 3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Business Motor Vehicles provides that the insured who is liable for compensation, or his parents, spouse, and child shall not be compensated for the death or injury of the insured or his spouse who is liable for compensation. The term "the insured who is liable for compensation" refers to the case where the deceased or the injured or the injured is liable for compensation for the damages caused by the same accident. The insurer cannot assert the exemption of the above provision on the ground that the injured or the injured is the consented insured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31860, Dec. 27, 1994; 96Da4613, Jul. 25, 1997; 96Da4613, Jul. 25, 1997). Furthermore, the records reveal that only the above plaintiff was not the victim due to the accident in this case, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the above plaintiff's liability for exemption is not the insurer.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff 1 is not "Nam who is not the defendant's obligation to compensate for the damage," or that the defendant is exempted from liability for the damage because he is the consent insured under the above exemption clause, is justified in its conclusion, and the above judgment of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

As seen earlier, in a case where the insured, who suffered an accident, can assert that he is another person as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, because it is more leading or directly and specifically shown on the part of the insured who suffered the accident than that of the insured, is in violation of the fundamental purport of the compensation system that provides guidance on the fair burden of damages. Thus, it is reasonable to reduce the amount of damages to be borne by the insured by the other party in light of the fairness and equity of the burden of damages and the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da3048, Mar. 27, 1991; 91Da42395, Feb. 11, 1992; 91Da42398, Apr. 23, 1993; 93Da1879, Apr. 23, 1993).

According to the above facts, the plaintiff 1, the owner of the concrete pumps of this case, or the above non-party 1, who is the owner of the concrete pumps of this case, had the operation control and operation benefits of the concrete pumps of this case, and in the above accident, the above plaintiff was temporarily suspended the operation of the above concrete pumps to enter the construction site, and the materials were stored behind them, so he neglected to perform his duty of care to prevent the accident, such as taking into account the situation in preparation for the situation where the above concrete pumps are moving back, etc., and was negligent in the accident of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to reduce the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, taking into account the above plaintiff's operation control and operation benefits of the motor vehicle of this case, the degree of operational control and operation benefits of the motor vehicle of this case, the circumstances and purpose of operation of the accident, and the above plaintiff's negligence on the occurrence of the accident.

The court below citing the first instance court's rejection of the Defendant's claim for exemption, etc. on the ground that the above Plaintiff could not be deemed to have caused an accident while using and managing the concrete pumps of this case. On the other hand, considering the above Plaintiff's negligence in relation to the occurrence of an accident recognized by macroscopic evidence, the circumstances surrounding the operation of the concrete pumps of this case, the purpose of operation, and the circumstances surrounding the above Plaintiff's lease of the above concrete pumps, etc., it is reasonable to view the Defendant's liability ratio to up to 65%. In light of the above legal principles, the court below's reasoning is inappropriate in light of the above legal principles. However, in light of the records, the court below's decision that deemed the Defendant's ratio of mitigation of liability to 35% as 35% cannot be deemed to be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Accordingly, the court below's conclusion is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to limitation of liability like the theory

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)