Whether the terms and conditions of comprehensive business automobile insurance, which are cited as the reason for the exemption of insurer's liability, apply to the case where the victim is unable to receive compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (negative)

The purpose of Article 10 (2) 4 of the General Insurance Clause, which prevents an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation from receiving the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, is to ensure that the accident compensation arising in labor-management relations should be compensated by industrial accident compensation insurance in principle. Thus, even if it is an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, if it is not possible to receive the compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it should be excluded from the application of the above exemption of liability.

Article 659 of the Commercial Code, Articles 1 and 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

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

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. and four others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na24508 delivered on November 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 10 (2) 4 of the General Terms and Conditions for Business Automobile Insurance, where an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for losses is dead or injured, the defendant shall not be compensated for such death or injury. The purport of such exemption is that the accident compensation arising from labor-management relations should be compensated by industrial accident compensation insurance in principle. Thus, even if it is an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, if it is not possible to receive compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it shall be excluded from the application of the above exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da6634 delivered on May 14, 191).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the construction work of new house as stated in the judgment by the plaintiff employed the above non-party and the accident of this case occurred, and the new construction work of this case confirmed that the construction cost of this case is 36 million won or less, and that the above construction work of this case is excluded from the application of the above law, and thus the above construction work of this case is less than 40 million won and thus does not receive compensation under the above law. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as pointed out.

The assertion ultimately leads to the lower court’s finding of facts, which are the exclusive right of the lower court, and the cooking of evidence, or that the lower court’s judgment is erroneous.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)