(a) The purport and scope of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause which provides for the exemption of insurer’s liability where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation and can receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act;

(b) A relationship concerning accident compensation in cases where a public official has sustained an injury on official duty.

A. Article 10(2)4 of the Automobile Comprehensive Insurance Clause provides that the insurer’s exemption is stipulated as an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for damages under the Labor Standards Act, if the victim is eligible to receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, in principle, for the accident compensation arising from labor-management relations. Thus, if the victim is not a person entitled to the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, or is unable to receive the accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act even if the victim is not a person entitled to the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the above exemption shall be excluded

B. In light of the provisions of Articles 1, 25, 34, 42, and 65(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act, where a public official under Article 3(1)1 of the same Act is injured due to official duties, it shall not be entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, but shall be paid under the Public Officials Pension Act. The principal of a special school established by the Do shall be deemed a public official under Article 3(1)1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and if it is true, he/she shall not be entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, but shall be deemed a person eligible to receive benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act.

(a) Article 659 of the Commercial Act; Articles 1 and 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Articles 11 and 14 of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 1, 3(1)1, 25, 34, 42 and 65(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na3495 delivered on December 15, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 was the principal of the ○○○ school, which is a special school as stipulated in Article 144 of the Education Act established by the defendant based on macroficial evidence, and that the non-party 2, who is a public official belonging to the above school, was injured by the accident of this case in order to consider the above school to return to the camping training site attached to the above school on the date of the accident. According to Article 10 (2) 4 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Automobile General Insurance Contract of this case which the defendant concluded with the plaintiff, the non-party 1 was an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for damages under the Labor Standards Act, who is entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and determined that the above non-party 1 was an employee of the above insurance company under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, which essentially provides labor for the purpose of wages, and the above non-party 1 was also applicable to the State and local governments under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act.

2. However, Article 10 (2) 4 of the above General Automobile Insurance Clause provides that if the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for damages under the Labor Standards Act and is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the insurer's exemption shall be stipulated as follows: (a) the Labor Standards Act governing the labor-management relations provides various employer's liability for compensation for damages caused by occupational accidents in the labor-management relations between the employer and the employee; and (b) the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides the industrial accident compensation insurance system under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to secure the liability for compensation; (c) therefore, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that the accident compensation arising in the labor-management relations should be compensated by industrial accident compensation insurance in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da38297, Aug. 18, 192; 2000).

However, according to the provisions of Articles 1, 25, 34, 42, and 65(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act, if a public official under Article 3(1)1 of the same Act suffers from an injury caused by official duty, it shall not be entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, but shall be paid under the Public Officials Pension Act. As recognized by the court below in this case, if the above non-party 1 is the principal of a special school, it may be viewed that he is a public official under Article 3(1)1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and if it is true, the above non-party 1 is not a person entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, but a person entitled to accident compensation under the Public Officials Pension Act. Accordingly, the above insurance accident cannot be viewed as an accident falling under the grounds for exemption under Article 10(2)4 of the above terms and conditions, and the court below did not consider whether the above non-party 1 constitutes a public official under Article 3(1)1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, but can not be determined as an accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act (the above non-party 1).

Therefore, the court below held that Non-party 1, the victim of the instant traffic accident, as an employee of the insured who is obligated to compensate under Article 10 (2) 4 of the above General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, who can receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and that the instant insurance accident constitutes the reason for exemption of the insurer's liability under the above Terms and Conditions of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. The above non-party 1 failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the above non-party 1 is a public official under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, or committed an unlawful interpretation of the above Terms and Conditions.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)