The case holding that in the terms and conditions of gas accident liability insurance for which subscription has been enforced under Article 43 of the former Urban Gas Business Act, the accident "gas accident" as an insured event under the terms and conditions of the contract refers only to the accident caused by explosion, fire, leakage, etc. of urban gas supplied by urban gas business operators, and thus, the accident of explosion of liquefied petroleum gas generated from some facilities, such as neglected gas pipes, etc. is not an insurance accident of the above gas accident liability insurance, on the ground that the removal of gas ventilation and ices used by the previous resident at the level of customer service in the construction of urban gas pipelines and removal of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was not properly removed.

The case holding that an accident of explosion of liquefied petroleum gas generated from some facilities, such as a neglected gas tank, etc., is not an insurance accident of the above gas accident liability insurance, on the ground that the term "gas accident" as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the gas accident liability insurance contract under Article 43 of the former Urban Gas Business Act (amended by Act No. 5823 of Feb. 8, 1999) refers to only the accident caused by explosion, fire, leakage, etc. of urban gas supplied by the urban gas business operator, while performing the pipeline construction of urban gas, as the gas pipe installed by the former resident at the level of customer service, and the removal of gas gas gas through the former resident's use was not properly removed.

Articles 2 and 43 of the former Urban Gas Business Act (amended by Act No. 5823 of Feb. 8, 1999); Article 105 of the Civil Act

Twin Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Green Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Sung-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na6619 delivered on October 11, 2005

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

Article 3(1) of the Agreement on Insurance of Gas Accident Compensation Insurance concluded between Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd.”) and the Defendant defines the insurance contingency as “gas accident that occurred in the course or in the course of performing the business of gas handling at the place of business listed in the insurance policy,” and the above insurance clause is commonly used for the gas liability insurance for which subscription is enforced for each type of gas under Article 43 of the Urban Gas Business Act, Article 25 of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, and Article 33 of the Safety and Business Management of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act. Therefore, the definition of the insurance accident under Article 3(1) of the above Insurance Clause is just to specify it as an insurance policy without directly specifying the type of gas and instead stating the type of gas at the place of business and the type of gas in the insurance policy. In light of the fact that the insurance subscription form submitted by Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd. to the Defendant and the fact that the gas accident purchased by Seoul Urban Gas Liability Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Urban Gas Accident Compensation Insurance Co., Ltd.”).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that an accident of explosion, namely, the gas explosion, the violation of the principle of interpretation of the terms and conditions and the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the former Urban Gas Business Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, is justified in light of the records and the above determination by the court below, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the terms and conditions and the interpretation of the former Urban Gas Business Act. Ultimately, the compensation liability for damages caused by such an accident is not attributable to the defendant by the plaintiff, who is an insurance company of Seoul Gas, in whole or in part, by removing gas throughout the previous residents' gas (LPG) at the level of customer service for the victim Nonparty 2.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)