[1] Whether the insurer may exercise the insurer's subrogation right in a case where the insured event occurred due to the act of the receiving insured, etc. included in the insured under the comprehensive automobile insurance terms and conditions (negative)

[2] The case holding that an employee who drives an insured vehicle on behalf of an insured company as an insured insured person does not constitute an "third party" under Article 682 of the Commercial Act where the insurer is entitled to exercise the insurer's subrogation right

[1] Article 682 of the Commercial Code / [2] Article 682 of the Commercial Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da10063 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 274), Supreme Court Decision 91Da7828 delivered on January 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 682), Supreme Court Decision 93Da1770 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2132), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4813 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2365), Supreme Court Decision 200Da33331 delivered on September 29, 200 (Gong200Ha, 22218), Supreme Court Decision 300Da360109 delivered on June 11, 201, Supreme Court Decision 20000Da3614500 delivered on June 26, 2005).

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Vindication, Attorney Jeon Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 2005Na809 decided May 20, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

In order for the insurer to exercise the rights of the policyholder or the insured against the third party in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the insurer must be caused by the act of the third party. In this case, the third party shall be a person other than the insured. If the general terms of the automobile insurance include a person who uses or manages the automobile with the consent of the named insured in addition to the named insured and a person who is driving the insured automobile (including operation assistants) for each of the above insured, the insurer shall not be entitled to obtain the rights of the insured in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation of the insurer (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da1063, Nov. 26, 1991; 91Da7828, Nov. 12, 1993; 93Da170, Jun. 29, 1993; 300Da3939, Jun. 39, 1995, etc.).

Examining the record in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Defendant entered the non-party company on July 8, 2002, he was engaged in the delivery of the instant vehicle, which is an insured vehicle owned by the non-party company, while going out and drop out by using it. When the Defendant did not operate the instant vehicle, he stored the key of the vehicle in a way that the key of the non-party company is posted to the calculating key in the store of the non-party company. On September 29, 2002, the Defendant did not inform the non-party company of the fact that the driver's license was revoked due to a drunk driving on or around September 29, 200, but the cancellation of the driver's license was known, but the Defendant did not frequently lose the workplace, and it is evident that the Defendant carried the instant vehicle for the purpose of returning it to the non-party company on or around December 19:30, 200, and even after leaving the office of the non-party company at around 222:10, 2002.

Therefore, although the part of the court below's reasoning that the defendant can be an insured person under the terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, the defendant does not constitute a third person under Article 682 of the Commercial Act regardless of whether the defendant who is engaged in driving of the vehicle of this case constitutes an insured person under the terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, or whether the defendant is an insured person under the conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, and therefore, the defendant does not constitute a third person under Article 682 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant's assertion on the premise that the defendant is a third person under Article 682 of the Commercial Act is just, and the decision of the court below is not erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, such as the grounds for appeal, or by misapprehending the legal principles of subrogation under Article

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)