The purpose and scope of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause prescribed by the insurer's exemption from liability where the victim may receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act as an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation.

Under the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, the insurer's exemption is stipulated as the case where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for damages under the Labor Standards Act, and the insurer's exemption is stipulated as the insurer's liability for various employer's compensation liability for damages caused by an occupational accident in the labor-management relations between the employer and the employee, and the industrial accident compensation insurance is established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to secure such compensation liability. In light of the fact that the employer establishes an industrial accident compensation system under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in principle, the accident compensation arising from the labor-management relations shall be compensated by the industrial

Article 659 of the Commercial Code, Article 1-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee) 93Da5376 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 679 delivered on March 11, 1994)

Dongdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Supo-si Attorney Park Ho-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na4877 delivered on December 10, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Under the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, the insurer's exemption is stipulated as the case where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and the insurer's exemption is stipulated as the insurer's liability for various compensation for damages caused by an occupational accident in the labor-management relations between the employer and the employee, while setting the industrial accident compensation insurance system under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to secure such liability for compensation, in principle, it is intended to receive compensation for damages caused by an industrial accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Therefore, even if it is an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, it shall be excluded from the application of the above exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da634, May 14, 1991; 91Da38297, Aug. 18, 1992; 93Da5192, Jun. 8, 1993).

The court below is just in holding that the accident of this case does not fall under the grounds for exemption stipulated in the above terms and conditions, and there is no error of law regarding the interpretation of the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance, such as theory of lawsuit, since the garbage treatment business of the member of the Council in the Mapopo City directly operated by the defendant is excluded from the scope of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as a business directly conducted by the local government.

In addition, even if the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is a business directly conducted by a local government, and it is not applicable to the business, the local government is sufficiently capable of guaranteeing the accident compensation for the victim of the traffic accident in this case, so in such a case, the above exemption provision should be applied. However, regardless of whether the victim, who is an employee, can receive accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the above exemption provision is excluded from the application of the above exemption provision, and therefore, the above discussion cannot be accepted.

The Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26553 Decided December 11, 1990 cited by the theory of the lawsuit is not a proper precedent to be invoked in this case. The arguments are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)