[1] The meaning of "motor vehicles which are ordinarily used" which are excluded from "other motor vehicles under the special terms and conditions for the operation of other motor vehicles," which are automatically applied to subscribers

[2] The case holding that a motor vehicle of a person who has returned to his/her station on the premise of marriage in order to reduce oil expenses due to a large business trip and a motor vehicle of a person who caused a traffic accident while exchanging and using his/her motor vehicle for three months constitutes "motor vehicle which is ordinarily used by the insured"

[1] The term "other motor vehicles" is defined as motor vehicles for private use other than those owned or used by the named insured and their parents, or their spouse or children, and the term "other motor vehicles" is defined as "other motor vehicles for free use for a considerable period of time" in light of the fact that the term "other special terms and conditions for motor vehicles are automatically applied to the insured" as "special terms and conditions for motor vehicles for driving other motor vehicles" and the term is defined as "other motor vehicles for free use for a considerable period of time" in light of the fact that the term "other special terms and conditions for motor vehicles for security" is same as the term "special terms and conditions for motor vehicles for free use" and the term is defined as "other motor vehicles for free use for a considerable period of time".

[2] The case holding that a motor vehicle of a person who has returned to a third party on the premise of marriage in order to reduce oil expenses due to a large business trip and a motor vehicle of a person who caused a traffic accident while exchanging and using his/her motor vehicle for three months constitutes "motor vehicle which is ordinarily used by the insured"

[1] [1] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Tran Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Sun-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Private Exchange (Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 99Gahap2991 delivered on February 17, 2000

Supreme Court Decision 2000Da60968 Delivered on January 19, 2001

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. On January 20, 199, around 06:30, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance money to the Defendant under a personal automobile insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, based on an injury guarantee special agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, for the non-automobile insurance contract for the non-automobile of 34No1132 of the Gyeongbuk-gu 27-gu (Serial omitted) in front of the office of the Pyeong-gu Office of the Pyeong-si Office located in the Gumpip.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

The original judgment shall be revoked. The same judgment as the disposition shall be sought.

1. Insurance contracts and accidents;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleading in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6-1, 2, 7-1 through 4, 8, and 9, and there is no counter-proof.

A. Around September 1998, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant for a personal automobile with the coverage period from September 19, 198 to September 19, 1999 with respect to the automobile of the 34No1132, which was owned by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “insured automobile”). From September 19, 198 to September 19, 199, the scope of coverage was 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 4, an injury to the non-insured automobile (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”).

(b)The clause of this case provides that the special contract for the injury covered by the non-insured motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") shall be automatically applied to the insured, and the contract of this case shall provide that the insured shall be deemed to be the insured motor vehicle of the general contract and its parents, their spouses or children, or their children, and shall be a self-motor vehicle which is not a motor vehicle ordinarily used, if the insured suffers from the loss due to the legal liability due to a personal accident or a physical accident that occurred while driving the "other motor vehicle".

C. On January 20, 199, at around 18:30, the Defendant driven an automobile of 27 Daegu-gu (Serial omitted) No. 27 (hereinafter “the instant accident vehicle”) owned by Nonparty 2, and was permanently staying on the road of the first line in front of the office of the sea surface of the Gu and Pyeong-si (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On January 20, 199, the Defendant was faced with Nonparty 1, who was without permission, and suffered injury, such as brain diverosis, due to shock of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”).

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was not obliged to pay insurance money because he was in the traffic accident of this case while he was ordinarily using the accident of this case, and that the defendant only lent the accident of this case to the defendant for temporary use, and therefore the plaintiff is obligated to pay insurance money to the defendant.

3. Determination

(a)The term "motor vehicles which are ordinarily used" which are excluded from "other motor vehicles under the terms of this case" means motor vehicles which are freely used by the insured for a considerable period of time, in light of the fact that the terms of this case stipulate that the insurance contracts of this case shall be automatically applied to the insured under the special agreement for coverage for injury with respect to an non-insurance motor vehicle, and that they share the risk rate and the contents of the terms thereof

B. However, in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, evidence Nos. 4-1 to 3 and testimony of Kim Jong-jin, the defendant and the non-party No. 2 have returned to the non-party No. 2 for about 3 years on the premise of marriage. On the beginning of December 1998, the defendant's business trip for about 3 months since early 1998, to reduce fuel expenses, the insured vehicle of this case and the small-sized driver's vehicle of this case, which were small-sized vehicles from February 16, 1999, are to be replaced with the insured vehicle of this case. The defendant delivered the insured vehicle of this case to the non-party No. 2, and delivered the vehicle of this case to the non-party No. 2, while the vehicle of this case was transferred from the non-party No. 2, the defendant cannot be found to have otherwise caused any traffic accident No. 2 to the non-party No. 4 and the defendant No. 2 of this case's testimony to the non-party No. 1 to this case. 2.

(c)In light of the relationship between the defendant and the non-party 2, the reason why the vehicle was exchanged, the replacement period, and the control relationship with the vehicle involved during the replacement period, it is clear that the vehicle involved constitutes a "motor vehicle normally used by the defendant".

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the accident of this case does not constitute "other automobiles under the terms and conditions of this case". As such, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay insurance money to the defendant in relation to the accident of this case, and as long as the defendant asserts that the vehicle of this case does not correspond to "vehicles ordinarily used" in relation to the accident of this case, there is a benefit to seek confirmation from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation should be accepted in the grounds, since the judgment of the court below is unfair in conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the decision to accept the plaintiff's claim.

Judges leap (Presiding Judge) Foreign Motion Pictures