[1] The meaning of "operation" under the automobile insurance terms and conditions, and whether an accident that occurred while using a motor vehicle in any way regardless of its nature or risk as a means of transportation can be seen as an accident during the operation of a motor vehicle (negative)

[2] The case holding that a motor vehicle operation does not constitute an accident while driving a motor vehicle, in case where a motor vehicle was under the influence of a lock while driving a motor vehicle in a locked while using the locked as its own space, rather than waiting for a string and a stringer

[1] The term "operation" under the automobile insurance clause refers to the use of an automobile in accordance with the usage of the device in question, and the term "the device" refers to the device continuously fixed to an automobile, which is the unique device of the automobile with the structure of the automobile, and in a case where all or part of the various devices are used according to their respective intended use, it is in operation, or even if the accident has died, it is difficult to regard it as an accident during the operation of the automobile even if it was used regardless of the nature or risk of the vehicle as a means of transportation.

[2] The case holding that a motor vehicle operation does not constitute an accident during the operation of a motor vehicle in a case where a diving was carried out while driving a motor vehicle for a string as a string and a string while using a string and a string for its own sake, not a waiting for a string and a stringer.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da7359 delivered on May 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 92Da8101 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1539) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da55180 delivered on April 29, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1612)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Hank, Attorneys Lee Ho-min et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na5370 delivered on June 15, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below concluded an insurance contract with the plaintiff, the non-party's non-party's non-party's entry into the above insurance contract, the plaintiff's non-party's non-party's non-party's moving out of the above insurance period, and it was hard to view the plaintiff's vehicle's vehicle's operation under the above insurance contract to be in violation of the law of the plaintiff's use of the vehicle as a whole or a part of the accident for the purpose of using the plaintiff's vehicle's own equipment or its own equipment to be in violation of the accident since it is hard to view it as a whole because it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's moving out of the above insurance period or the non-party's moving out of the above vehicle's own equipment or the accident of the plaintiff's moving out to a restaurant 6 meters wide from the time of moving out the above vehicle, and it is hard to see that the plaintiff's moving out of the above vehicle's own equipment or its own equipment to be in violation of the law of the plaintiff's own equipment or its own equipment.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents pointed out by the defendant are different from the contents of this case, and it cannot be invoked in this case.

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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)