El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Non-former Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Ho-kuk et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Federation of Bus Transport Business Cooperatives (Attorney Ansan-do, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 20, 2006

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004Kadan10571 Decided May 4, 2005

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in total, in the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 136,081,340 won with 5% interest per annum from September 24, 2003 to September 10, 2004, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

It is as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Decree.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with a special contract for accident-free motor vehicle with the amount of insurance coverage as KRW 200 million with respect to the vehicles owned by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3. According to the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty 3, his husband, is included in the scope of the insured.

(2) The Defendant concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle deduction contract with respect to tourist buses listed in 71A7190, which are owned by the Defendant, for the use, and management of the motor vehicle under the said mutual aid agreement. The said mutual aid agreement provides that “damage suffered by a partner due to his/her death or injury caused by his/her death or injury to another person due to his/her possession, use, and management of the motor vehicle under the said mutual aid agreement shall be compensated for pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.”

B. Occurrence of the instant traffic accident

(1) At around 00:20 on June 1, 200, Nonparty 5, a driver of a holiday who is a driver of the above expressway, driven a car on the test color (vehicle number omitted) owned by Nonparty 6 without being covered by the liability insurance policy, and stopped the above expressway by Nonparty 1, a driver of the above expressway, with the speed of 100 km away from the left side of the Dong-dong Highway, the speed of 159 km at a speed of 100 km at the speed of the located side of the river at the speed of 159 km the speed of the located side of the river, which is two-lane Seoul, along the speed of 159 km, along the left side of the bus at the speed of the above expressway (hereinafter referred to as “one-lane road”). Nonparty 5 stopped the above expressway and stopped the two-lane road at the speed below the left side of the vehicle and stopped the two-lane road.”

(2) On the other hand, after about 10 minutes had passed, Nonparty 7 was driving (vehicle number omitted) a small passenger car with the liability insurance policy to Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Marine Fire Insurance”) along the above expressway with the first lane. On the other hand, Nonparty 7: (a) discovered that the car was parked on the road located on the front side of the driving direction; (b) rapidly changed the two-lane to avoid this, and (c) opened the said car, the first direction of the car was cut down to the front side of the said small car; and (d) proceeded to the road along the above expressway with the front side of the said bus, and (e) proceeded to the above tourist bus’s passengers who stopped on the road on the road of the above expressway, with the front side of the above tourist bus and the front side of the above tourist bus and the part between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4, etc. (hereinafter “the above part of the passenger car”) and the two-party 2.

(3) Due to the above second accident, Non-party 2 died on August 23, 2003 while receiving treatment from an original cycle hospital, etc. by suffering from injuries such as liver and kidne fever, cerebral cerebralcular, etc., and Non-party 4 suffered from injuries such as the scopical and scopic base, the right scopic base, etc.

C. Payment of insurance money to the Plaintiff’s deceased Nonparty 2, etc.

The deceased non-party 2's inheritors and non-party 4 filed a claim for the payment of the mutual aid money for the above second accident against the defendant, who is a mutual aid business operator for the above tourist buses, but the defendant refused to pay the mutual aid money for the non-party 1 who operated the above tourist bus at all, and upon the non-party 1's refusal to pay the insurance money under the above-mentioned special agreement for accident-free cars. The plaintiff paid the plaintiff a sum of KRW 231,081,340,000 to the claimant. The plaintiff paid the insurance money of KRW 231,081,340,000,000 won, which is the limit of the liability insurance money at the time of the death of the deceased non-party 2 by exercising the right to indemnity against the modern marine accident insurance, which is the liability insurer for the above car, to pay 80,000 won and KRW 15,000,000,000,000 won.

【Fact- without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap’s evidence No. 4-1, 2, 5-1 through 10, Gap’s evidence No. 6-1 through 5, Gap’s evidence No. 9-5, 8, Eul’s evidence No. 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The above second accident is an accident caused by the operation of the above tourist bus. After the first accident, the non-party 1, who is a driver, parked the above tourist bus on the side of the expressway adjacent to the stopping point of the car, did not take necessary measures, such as marking the warning sign as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, and did not take measures to inform passengers of the accident and instruct passengers to wait at the above tourist bus for safety. The non-party 1's negligence was caused by competition with the non-party 5 and the non-party 7's negligence, which caused the second accident. The operator of the Seo-gu tour is liable for all damages suffered by the victim, and the plaintiff is already liable for compensation to the non-party 2's heir, etc., who is the victim, for the compensation of the above amount equivalent to the above amount.

(b) Markets:

(1) According to the above facts, the above second accident appears to have been caused by the possession, use, and management of the above tourist bus for the use of the open-end charter event, and in accordance with the above mutual-aid agreement, in order for the damage suffered by the deceased non-party 2's heir due to the second accident to fall under the scope of the damage that the defendant acquired by the defendant, a member of the defendant's association, in relation to the second accident, the Seo-gu Aviation Tour Co., Ltd. shall be liable

(2) However, according to Article 3 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 6969 of Aug. 21, 2003), in order for an operator to be exempted from liability as an operator when he/she dies or injures another person due to his/her operation, the injury or death of the victim, if the victim is a passenger (Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the same Act), shall be caused by his/her intentional act or suicide by the passenger (Article 3). (2) Only in cases where the passenger is not a passenger, the operator and the driver shall not be negligent in paying attention to the operation of the motor vehicle, but shall prove that the victim, the operator, and any third person, other than the driver, did not interfere with the structural defect or function of the motor vehicle (Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the same Act).

According to the whole purport of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 9-10, 21, and 25 of the above tourist bus after the first accident, the non-party 1 stopped the above tourist bus on the side of the expressway, and left it together with the non-party 8, etc. for the relief of damage and the recovery of accident. The non-party 2, including the deceased non-party 2, voluntarily left the above tourist bus to take part in the management of the accident, and voluntarily left it from the above tourist bus in order to take part in the situation of the accident or to take part in the management of accident, it can be recognized that the non-party 2, at the time of the second accident, was not in the status of passengers any longer by getting out of the control of the operator of the above tourist bus at his own discretion.

(3) 나아가 이를 전제로 서광항공여행사나 소외 1에게 위 2차 사고의 발생과 관련하여 과실이 있는지에 대하여 보건대, 위 각 증거에 의하면, 소외 1이 당시 고속도로 갓길에 위 관광버스를 정차시키고 나서 도로교통법 및 동법 시행규칙의 관련규정에서 정한 일정한 규격의 반사체로 제작된 정지표지판이나 적색의 섬광신호 등을 설치하는 등의 조치를 취한 바 없었고, 하차시 따로 차내 방송 등을 통하여 망 소외 2 등에 대하여 따로 사고 발생 사실을 알리거나 차량 내부에서 계속 대기하라고 명시적으로 지시하지는 아니한 사실은 인정되나, 한편 갑 제8호증의 2, 갑 제9호증의 6, 7, 10, 갑 제11호증의 2, 을 제4호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, ① 소외 1은 1차 사고 후 사고 수습 및 피해 구제를 위하여 부득이하게 그랜져 승용차의 정차 지점으로부터 약 72m 떨어진 지점(최초 충돌 지점으로부터는 약 172m 정도 떨어진 지점이다)의 고속도로 갓길에 정차하게 된 것인데, 당시 노면의 상태 등에 비추어 2차 사고의 가해 차량인 위 소나타 승용차가 최고제한속도인 시속 100㎞를 준수하여 진행하였을 경우에는 정지를 위하여 필요한 제동거리가 68.6m 정도면 충분하였던 사실, ② 그 후 소외 1은 즉시 위 관광버스의 비상경고등을 점멸시키고 하차하여 후방 약 170m 떨어진 갓길까지 나아가 손전등을 비추며 수신호를 하여 후행 차량들에게 사고 발생 상황을 적극적으로 알림으로써 갓길 주변을 통행하던 차량에 의한 후속사고를 방지하려고 노력하였고, 이에 소나타 승용차 운전자인 소외 7도 그 부근 1차로를 지나면서 이를 목격하고 진행 방향의 전방에서 1차 사고가 발생된 사정을 예상할 수 있었던 사실, ③ 반면 소외 7은 야간에 혈중알콜농도 0.06%의 주취상태에서 이미 제한속도를 20㎞나 초과한 시속 120㎞의 속도로 계속 운행하였고, 소외 5는 그랜져 승용차가 1차로상에 정차 중이었음에도 즉시 하차하여 후행 차량을 위한 경고 신호를 보내기 위한 아무런 조치를 취하지 아니하였음은 물론, 차량 후면의 비상등을 점멸시키는 조치도 취하지 아니하였으며, 그랜져 승용차의 조수석 탑승자인 소외 9는 후방에서 진행 중인 차량의 유무를 살피지 않은 채 부주의하게 차량문을 열고 나오려다 마침 1차로에서 위 그랜져 승용차를 발견하고 피행하려던 위 소나타 승용차로 하여금 위 차량문에 충격하도록 하고, 그 충격으로 인하여 위 소나타 승용차가 위 관광버스가 정차된 갓길까지 비스듬히 미끄러져 들어감으로써 2차 사고가 발생된 사실, ④ 1차 사고로 차량에 가해진 충격, 고속도로 갓길로의 대피 상황, 소외 1이 사고 수습을 위하여 승객들로부터 손전등을 빌린 과정 등을 통하여 비록 소외 1이 명시적으로 알리지는 않았으나 위 관광버스의 대다수 승객들은 이미 1차 사고의 발생으로 인하여 갓길에 정차된 상황을 충분히 알 수 있었던 사실, ⑤ 당시 위 관광버스 자체에 별다른 구조상의 결함이나 기능상의 장해가 있었던 것으로는 보이지 않는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, ⑥ 그런 상황에서 망 소외 2는 위 관광버스의 내부에 머물지 않고 임의로 하차하여 진행 차량에 의한 사고를 입을 위험이 있던 고속도로 갓길에 나가 있었던 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같은바, 이러한 제반 사정을 종합적으로 고려할 때, 소외 1은 1차 사고 후 위 관광버스를 사고 지점으로부터 충분히 떨어진 장소로 비상 대피시킨 후 사고 수습 및 피해자 보호를 위한 실질적인 조치의무를 다한 것으로 보이는 반면, 위 2차 사고는 위와 같은 소외 5, 7, 9의 음주, 제한속도, 전방주시의무 및 안전운행의무위반 등 중한 과실과 안전한 장소인 차량 내에서 스스로 이탈하여 피해를 초래한 망 소외 2 자신의 부주의함이 경합되어 발생된 사고로서, 소외 1이나 서광항공여행사의 입장에서는 이러한 사고 발생을 미리 예상할 수 있었다고 보기 어려워, 결국 소외 1과 서광항공여행사에게는 2차 사고의 발생과 관련하여 과실이 없었다고 봄이 상당하고, 갑 제7호증, 갑 제9호증의 12 내지 20, 갑 제9호증의 23 내지 24, 갑 제10호증의 각 기재만으로는 이를 뒤집기에 부족하다.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to lease a mine on behalf of the insurer against the Defendant is legally liable for damages caused by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. against the deceased Nonparty 2 in relation to the second accident is without merit (in particular, it is difficult to recognize liability for damages, etc. under the Civil Act, unless special negligence is recognized with respect to the second accident to Nonparty 1 and the exercise of the right to lease a mine on behalf of the insurer).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) and Kim Young-chul