In a case where a person driving a vehicle with a view to removing a motor vehicle from a blick drive as a blick in a situation where the person was on the blicks, and the person was immediately left to the left and caused the death of the vehicle, the case holding that there was an exemption from liability under the provisions of the Automobile Insurance Standard Terms and Conditions on the ground that there was an "unclaimed intention" as to the occurrence of the death to the driver of the vehicle

In a case where Party A, the insured of the General Automobile Insurance Contract, was at the end of the vehicle, and the driver B and the driver B were at the end of the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle was at the end of the vehicle, and the fact of his drinking operation was immediately discovered, but Party B was at the speed of about 50 km per hour in order to remove Party B’s body from the passenger vehicle so that Party B was at the speed of about 200 meters per hour, and Party B was immediately at the end of the vehicle and caused Party B’s death, the case held that Party A was aware of the result of Party B’s death, on the ground that Party B was at the speed of about 50 km, and that Party A was at the end of the vehicle at the speed of 50 km and caused Party B’s death. In light of the whole process up to the death and subsequent measures, it is reasonable to view that Party A was aware that the result of Party B’s above act would result in Party B’s death.

Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Jeon Jong-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Furthermore, Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Hong Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gadan194848 Decided December 29, 2009

April 14, 2010

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay 75,612,067 won to the plaintiff 1, and 33,843,595 won to the plaintiff 2 and 3, respectively, and 5% per annum from December 11, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 22,686,449, and to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 4,726,517, respectively, 5% per annum from December 11, 2008 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. Defendant

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

(1) Around 01:05 on December 11, 2008 (vehicle registration number omitted), Nonparty 1 driven a elart car (hereinafter referred to as “dial vehicle”) and got Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2, who had followed the vehicle while driving at the upper speed of 101 in the upper speed of Dobong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, into the franch of 100-dong, the Korean History 100,000 (hereinafter referred to as “dicing vehicle”) and had Nonparty 2 take a dispute at the speed of 50 km, which occurred later due to the sudden driving, and had Nonparty 2 remove the above dic vehicle at the speed of 10 km and 50 m/ m/ m of the accident, and caused Nonparty 2 to have the above dicul 20 m of the vehicle at the speed of 50 m/ m of the accident, and caused Nonparty 2 to have the above dicul stal to turn to the left.

(2) Plaintiff 1 is the wife of the deceased Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the deceased”). Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (contractor and the insured: Nonparty 1) with respect to the above sea-going vehicle.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case that occurred during the operation of the above harming vehicle as the insurer of the above harming vehicle.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of immunity

As to this, the defendant's defense against the accident of this case occurred by the intention of the non-party 1, who is the policyholder and the insured, is examined as to this.

(1) The meaning of intent under Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act and the Automobile Insurance Standard Clause

Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act provides, “When an insurance accident has occurred due to the intention or gross negligence of a policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary, an insurer shall not be liable to pay the insured amount.” According to the evidence No. 4, Article 14 of the Automobile Insurance Standard Terms and Conditions of this case provides, “No compensation shall be made for the loss caused by the policyholder or the insured’s intentional act.” The term “suspect” under the said Automobile Insurance Terms and Conditions refers to the psychological condition in which the act is performed despite being aware that a certain result would occur by the act. This includes not only conclusive intention but also dolusent intention (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997, etc.). Here, the term “unborn intention” refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain, and the possibility of the occurrence of the crime should be determined by considering the possibility of the occurrence of the crime and the possibility of the act in question being 40 in light of the circumstances of the offender’s statement.

(2) Whether the insured was intentionally recognized

과연 원고들 주장의 손해가 피보험자인 소외 1의 ‘고의’에 의한 사고로 인하여 발생하였는지 여부에 대하여 본다. 갑 제3, 4호증, 을 제1호증의 2, 9 내지 20, 을 제2호증의 각 기재 및 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 보면, ① 중학교 교사인 소외 1은 2008. 12. 11. 01:05경 혈중알콜농도 0.133%의 상태로 가해차량을 운전하여 진행하던 중, 위 가해차량의 뒤에서 진행해 오던 개인택시 운전자인 망인으로부터 빨리 진행하지 않는다는 이유로 경적을 울리고 전조등을 깜빡거리는 등의 항의를 받게 되자, 위 가해차량을 정차시킨 후 망인에게 다가가 ‘추월해서 가면 되지 않느냐’며 시비를 걸었고, 이에 망인도 위 택시를 정차시킨 후 차에서 내려 서로 말다툼을 한 사실, ② 소외 1은 그 와중에 망인으로부터 ‘어, 술냄새가 나네, 경찰에 신고해야겠다’라는 말을 듣게 되자, 자신의 음주운전 사실이 발각될 것이 두려워 급하게 위 가해차량에 승차하였고, 이를 본 망인이 위 가해차량 앞에 서서 가로 막으며 출발을 막는데도 불구하고 화가 나 위 가해차량을 출발시킨 사실, ③ 그러자 망인은 왼손으로 위 가해차량의 보닛 중간의 끝부분을 잡고 오른손으로 운전석 앞 와이퍼를 잡은 후 다리만 가해차량에 올린 채 엎드린 자세로 매달린 사실, ④ 소외 1은 처음에는 서서히 운전해 가다가 망인이 가해차량에서 내리지 않자 위 가해차량의 속도를 시속 50km로 높여 약 200m 구간의 빗길을 지그재그로 운전하였고, 그래도 망인이 위 가해차량에서 떨어지지 아니하자 국사봉 사거리를 통과한 후 좌로 굽은 도로를 약 100m 가량 진행하던 중 중앙선을 넘어 반대차로로 급히 좌회전을 하였으며, 이로 인해 망인으로 하여금 위 가해차량에서 떨어져 진행방향 반대차로 1차로상의 아스팔트 포장도로에 전도되게 하여 망인에게 약 8주간의 치료를 요하는 다발성 두개골 함몰 골절상, 급성 경막하 출혈 등의 상해를 가하였고, 그로 인하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 사망에 이르게 한 사실, ⑤ 소외 1은 망인이 아스팔트 노면에 부딪혀 쓰러져 있음을 알면서도 망인의 부상 여부조차 확인하지 않은 채 곧바로 자신의 집으로 가버린 사실, ⑥ 소외 1은 경찰 조사시 ‘망인을 보닛에 매달고 속력을 내어 달리다가 망인이 바닥에 떨어질 경우 머리를 바닥에 부딪치거나 다른 이유로 사망할 것이라는 생각이 들었나요’라는 질문에 ‘사망할 수도 있다는 생각이 듭니다’라고 대답하고, ‘당시 보닛에 매달린 망인을 떨어뜨리려는 목적뿐이었나요’라는 질문에 ‘예’라고 대답하였으며, ‘그렇다면 당시 범행을 생각해 보면 망인이 바닥에 떨어져 죽거나 다칠 수도 있다는 생각은 하지 않았나요’라는 질문에 ‘지금 생각하면 죽거나 다칠 수도 있다는 생각이 듭니다’라고 대답한 사실, ⑦ 이 사건에 관하여 관할 수사기관은 당초 소외 1을 살인죄로 입건하였으나, 망인의 유족들이 소외 1이 살인죄로 입건되어 처벌받게 되면 소외 1이 가입한 보험계약에 기하여 보험회사로부터 아무런 보험금을 지급받을 수 없으므로 최소한 보험금은 지급받을 수 있도록 위 사건을 상해치사죄로 의율해 줄 것을 수사기관에 요청한 사실, ⑧ 이에 따라 소외 1은 상해치사 등의 혐의로 서울중앙지방법원 2008고합1465호 로 기소되어 2009. 3. 19. 위 법원으로부터 상해치사죄, 도로교통법 위반(음주운전)죄로 징역 2년 6월을 선고받았고, 이에 소외 1이 서울고등법원 2009노728호 로 항소하였으나 위 법원으로부터 항소기각판결을 선고받아 그 무렵 위 판결이 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 을 제1호증 3, 9, 16의 각 일부 기재는 믿지 아니하고, 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts, it is clear that Nonparty 1, as a non-party 1, was aware and used that he would inflict an injury on the deceased.

Furthermore, regarding the existence of the deceased’s intentional injury. ① Nonparty 1 started driving the above harming vehicle under the circumstances where the deceased was able to sculpted by sculpting 1 on the ground of his or her initial operation, etc., and ② Nonparty 1, at the time, operated the deceased in a very dangerous manner without any sculpting intention to sculp the deceased’s surface on the sculp of the above sculpt, and it is difficult to prove that the result of the sculpt 1’s death could not be seen as having been 30 meters high or more at the time of his or her death, on the premise that it was difficult to prove that the result of the sculpt 1’s death was sculpted by sculpt 1’s affirmative act after the death of Nonparty 1’s death at the time of his or her death at the time of his or her death. ⑤ Nonparty 1 could have sufficiently predicted the above scul 1’scul in the death.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, each of the damages alleged by the plaintiffs falls under the "damage caused by intention" as stipulated in the above terms and conditions, and the defendant, the insurer, is not liable to pay the insurance amount to the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of its own reason. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)