[1] The purpose of the so-called "public vehicle exemption clause" among the general terms and conditions of business automobiles and the standard for applying the case where multiple insured persons exist

[2] Whether the exemption clause applies only to "accident while on board an insured motor vehicle"

[1] Among the general terms and conditions of automobile for business, in the case of insurance with the special terms and conditions of tolerance, it shall be interpreted that "no compensation shall be made in case a soldier, etc. was killed in action, died on duty, or died on duty on board an insured automobile for the purpose of combat or other performance of duties, or for the purpose of national defense or maintenance of public order." Thus, as provided by the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, in the event a soldier, etc. is entitled to receive compensation pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, if a soldier, etc. is not entitled to claim compensation against the State, the State shall not make a claim for compensation against an insurance company as the insured. In the event there

[2] Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act provides that a government-invested car exemption provision shall be construed as including both the cases of death in action, death in action or on duty, or on duty, while on board the insured vehicle. Therefore, even if a traffic accident occurs in the line of active duty, the exemption provision is applied even in cases of a traffic accident in the line of active duty.

Article 678 of the Commercial Act, proviso to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

Yangju-gun and one other (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

1. It is confirmed that the development of the daily environment for the plaintiff limited partnership company has a claim for insurance money under an accident recorded in the attached Form and an insurance contract against the defendant;

2. The plaintiff Yangju Group's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiff Yangju-gun and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff Yangju-gun, the development of a single-day environment for the plaintiff Yangju-gun and the defendant, respectively.

The plaintiff Yangju-gun confirms that the defendant has a claim for insurance money according to the accident stated in the attached Form and the insurance contract, and the judgment as set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as to the testimony of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 9 and the testimony of Kim Nam-nam.

A. On May 11, 1993, the Plaintiff Yangju-gun entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for automobile for business use with the Defendant for cleaning cargo trucks 7t 1534 owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant automobile”). From January 11, 1994, the Plaintiff Yang-gun entered into a cleaning agency contract with the Plaintiff Han Han-il Environmental Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Han-ju Environmental Development”), and had the Plaintiff Han-si Environmental Development use the instant automobile for cleaning.

B. However, at around 30 on April 11, 1994, the non-party Kim Jong-soo, an employee of the plaintiff Han-il Environment Development, driving the instant vehicle in this case at a speed of 50km high speed from the surface of the Gyeonggi Yang-gun to the luminous bank, with a luminous discharge of 3rd-gun high speed of 50km high speed. On the other hand, the non-party Park Jong-jin, a soldier belonging to the 201 group of 72 group 201 group 201 group 3 group 1 group 201 group 201 group 20 group 3 group 3 group 201 group 3 group 20 group 3 group 10 group 11 group 56 group 2 group 11 group 2 group 3 group 11, 2000 group 10 group 20 group 10 group 10 group 10 group 11 group 3 group 2 group 10 group 1 group 2 group m.

2. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of claim for insurance money due to the instant accident against the Defendant as the insured and the consenting insured under the foregoing insurance contract, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit seeking separate confirmation is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

However, the plaintiffs can claim insurance money against the defendant only after the amount of damages has been determined and paid to the victims of the accident of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of damages was determined and paid as of April 13, 1995, or that the above victims separately filed a claim for damages due to the accident of this case, and as long as the defendant contests the duty to pay insurance money due to the accident of this case, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek confirmation of the claim for insurance money, the above defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) above, both Plaintiffs Yang-gun are the owners of the instant automobile, and the environment of Han-gun is all the users of the said Kim-si, and the damages liability arising from the instant accident. The Plaintiff Yang-gun is the insured under the insurance contract, and the environment of Han-gun is the consent of both Plaintiffs and the consent insured who uses the instant automobile with the consent of both Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim the payment of the insurance amount arising from the instant accident, unless there are other special circumstances against the Defendant.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts that the automobile of this case is insured among the general terms and conditions of automobile for business, and the accident of this case constitutes a case where the defendant is exempted from liability pursuant to Article 3 of the above special terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as "government automobile exemption clauses"). Thus, the defendant is not liable to pay insurance money.

Therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the above special terms and conditions, it can be acknowledged that "I do not compensate in the event that a soldier, civilian military employee, police officer, or member of the homeland reserve forces is killed in action, on board an insured automobile for the purpose of combat, training, or performance of duties, or is killed in action, on duty, on duty or on duty for the purpose of national defense or maintenance of public order." The victims of the accident of this case are soldiers who suffered the accident of this case during their active service. Thus, the accident of this case constitutes the case where a soldier was killed in action or on duty in connection with the training stipulated in the above Articles of the above Articles of the State Compensation Act. However, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act provides that the State or local government shall compensate for damages under the State Compensation Act if the insured is liable for damages under the above provisions of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, but if a soldier or his bereaved family member suffers from an accident, on the same ground, on the grounds that the State or local government can not individually be entitled to compensation under the above provisions of the State or local government's.

Therefore, the victims of the accident of this case can file a claim for damages in accordance with the Civil Act against the plaintiff's environment, which is not the state or local government, and since the plaintiff's environment is the consent insured for the motor vehicle of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the insurance amount in accordance with the accident of this case against the plaintiff's Han-ju, and since the plaintiff's both groups are exempted from liability in accordance with the above indemnity clause, the above defense is reasonable for the defendant Yangju-gun, and there is no reason for the defendant Han-ju environment.

C. Determination on the assertion of the Plaintiff Yang Sung-ju

(1) On February 1, 1993, the plaintiff Yang-gun did not receive notice of the exemption clause from the defendant at the time of concluding the insurance contract with the defendant, and the insurance policy delivered by the defendant did not contain any special provision clause, so the above exemption clause cannot be the content of the insurance contract. However, in full view of Eul evidence No. 2 and Eul evidence No. 3 and witness Kim Nam's testimony, the non-party Kimnam's employees, who were the employees of both plaintiffs Yang-gun, concluded the insurance contract for the truck No. 7914 on behalf of the plaintiff Yang-gun, which could not be seen as being subject to the above exemption clause from the insurance contract of this case from the above Kim Nam-gun to the above 19710's comprehensive insurance contract of this case, regardless of the fact that the above exemption clause was not applied to the above 19's comprehensive insurance contract of this case, it could not be seen that the above exemption clause was not applied to the above 19's comprehensive insurance contract of this case from the above 19's general insurance contract of this case.

(2) Next, according to the terms and conditions of the official car exemption, the plaintiff Yangju-gun argues that "if a soldier et al. was killed in action, died on duty, or died on duty in the course of performing his duties," it shall be interpreted that "if a soldier et al. was killed in action, died on duty, or died on duty in the course of carrying out his duties." Thus, as in the case of the accident in this case, the victims did not get covered by the terms and conditions of the official car exemption. However, the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act provide that the provisions of the State Compensation Act provide that a soldier et al. shall be the same as the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act include all cases where a soldier et al. was killed in action, died on duty, or died on duty in the transportation equipment

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for the plaintiff Han-il Environment shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the claim for the plaintiff Yangju-gun shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Separate Notice】

Details of accidents

On April 11, 1994, the non-party Kim-soo, an employee of the Korea-Japan Environmental Development Institute, operated a truck No. 7t 1534 on April 11, 1994: around 30, 70 Gyeonggi-do 7t 1534, and operated a 3rd mick-ro, e.g., 50km from the Gyeonggi-do eng-gun to the e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., 50km at a speed of 50km from the e.g., the e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., g., k.

Details of the insurance contract

Insured: Head of Yangju Gun

Insured automobile: sports 7t 1534

Insurance period: From May 11, 1993 to May 11, 1994.

Judges Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-soo