In the case of the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance, whether the amount calculated according to the standard for payment of the automobile comprehensive insurance money and only the cost are subject to the insurance under Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In the case of personal compensation as the insurance limit on the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance for the accident vehicle, the liability for damages and expenses shall be paid for the non-business, but if the business is to compensate only the amount and expenses calculated according to the payment criteria for the comprehensive automobile insurance for the automobile, if the accident vehicle is to compensate for only the expenses, the insurance pursuant to the above general terms and conditions shall not be deemed to fall under the insurance pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Therefore, more review and determination of the contents

Articles 3 and 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 84No268 delivered on July 25, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to each of the automobile comprehensive insurance subscription forms and the automobile comprehensive insurance contract clauses for the instant accident vehicle, the court below concluded the automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Korea Automobile Insurance Company, using the instant accident vehicle as the insured vehicle, according to the automobile comprehensive insurance clauses and the special clauses of the said insurance contract, and judged that the Defendant, the driver of the instant accident vehicle, can not be prosecuted pursuant to Article 4(2) and the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant caused the instant accident due to the causes listed in Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the terms and conditions of the said insurance contract are referred to as "general provisions, (2), (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents," and (5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

However, Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that in case where a vehicle causing a traffic accident is insured or subscribed to mutual aid under Article 5 or 7 of the Insurance Business Act or Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, a public action against the driver of the vehicle who committed the crime as provided in the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the same Act shall not be instituted. The term "insurance" or "mutual aid" in Article 4 (2) of the same Act provides that in case of a traffic accident, an insurer of an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act or a mutual aid business operator under the Land Transport Promotion Act or a mutual aid business operator under the Land Transport Promotion Act provides that in case of a traffic accident, an insurer of an insurance business or mutual aid business operator under the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the same Act provides that in case of an insurance or mutual aid agreement for damages between the insured or members of mutual aid association, the total amount of ordinary expenses and other damages shall be paid in place of the insured or members of mutual aid association in accordance with the provisions of the Presidential Decree.

However, according to the records, this vehicle can be recognized as being covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance policy as a business vehicle. However, according to the general automobile insurance policy for the accident of this case, in the case of compensation for non-business as the insurance limit, the court below's determination that the automobile accident of this case was covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance policy of this case and the amount calculated according to the payment standard of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract of this case, and the defendant as insured by the defendant (issuance by the Korea Automobile Insurance Corporation of August 10, 1982) should be proved as being borne by the victim within the limit of the insurance amount under the insurance policy of this case and the comprehensive automobile insurance policy of this case, and it is not proved as being covered by the Act of Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it is not proved as being covered by the Act No. 4 of Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. In light of these facts, the court below's determination that the automobile accident of this case was covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance policy of this case and the amount of the insurance policy of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)