[1] The scope of legal liability for damages caused by an accident of an insured motor vehicle where the provisions of the General Automobile Insurance Clause provide that "the insured shall compensate for damages caused by an insured motor vehicle's death or injury to his/her third party by taking legal liability for damages."

[2] The case holding that the insurer is liable for compensation in the event that explosives are installed in the vehicle by a third party due to negligence in managing the insured automobile, and passengers are injured due to explosion of the explosives

[1] Article 9 (1) 1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance provides that "the company shall compensate for losses sustained by the insured as a result of the insured's death or injury caused by the insured's accident." Article 9 (1) 2 provides that the scope of the above compensation exceeds the scope of the liability insurance for automobile accident compensation. The scope of the insured's "legal liability for damages to be compensated by the insurer under the said terms and conditions" is not limited to the liability of the owner of the automobile under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, unlike the liability insurance for automobile accident compensation, but includes general liability for damages and liability of the employer under the Civil Act

[2] The case holding that the insurer shall be liable for direct compensation for damage caused by negligence in the execution of the business to be borne by the insured against the victim, in case where the owner of the taxi dismissed the explosives due to negligence on the part of neglecting the owner of the taxi to display the keys in the taxi or not to install corrective devices in the taxi

[1] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da18945 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2097) Supreme Court Decision 95Da53942 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3114)

Landscaping and two others (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Man-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na43643 delivered on April 28, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant was responsible for damages incurred by the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3 defendant's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4 defendant's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'.

Examining the judgment of the first instance court and the lower court in light of the records, the judgment of the lower court is just and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nature of insurance, such as novels, the nature of the automobile insurance, or by misapprehending the automobile insurance clause.

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu11787 Decided April 25, 1989 and Supreme Court Decision 92Da8108 Decided April 27, 1993 cited by theory of lawsuit is different from this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)