[1] The purpose and application of the exemption clause under the General Conditions of Automobile Insurance concerning the case where the victim is an employee of the insured and can receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act

[2] Whether a report on the establishment of an insurance relationship or a payment of insurance premium is required as an element for an employee of the business owner who naturally becomes an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder to claim payment of the insurance benefits

[1] In an automobile comprehensive liability insurance contract, where the victim of an accident is an employee of the insured who is obligated to be liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and is entitled to receive an accident compensation under the General Clause of Automobile Liability Insurance which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss suffered by the insured due to the accident. The purpose of this provision is to exclude the accident compensation arising from an industrial accident compensation insurance in principle from the scope of the automobile insurance with the aim of compensating for the loss to a third party and compensating for the loss to a third party. Thus, if the victim is a person entitled to the accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the insurer shall not be held liable for compensation to the insured in accordance with the above indemnity clause.

[2] If an employee belonging to the business after the business owner who has been automatically subscribed to the industrial accident compensation insurance under Articles 6(1) and 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) suffers from an occupational accident, he/she may claim payment of insurance benefits under the same Act as a matter of course. The business owner is not entitled to claim payment of insurance benefits only for an occupational accident that occurred after he/she completed the procedure such as reporting the establishment of an insurance relationship or paying insurance premiums under Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. This does not change because the business owner discontinued his/her business after the occurrence of an occupational accident.

[1] Article 659 of the Commercial Act, Articles 1 and 4 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Articles 6 (1) and 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da4238 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1596) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da23107 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 76) Supreme Court Decision 94Da424 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1286)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

El Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na7665 delivered on July 14, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below's decision is justified in recognizing that the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's family is about seven regular

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In an automobile comprehensive liability insurance contract, where the victim of the accident is an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for damage under the Labor Standards Act, and is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the provisions of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause which stipulates that the insurer shall not compensate for the damage suffered by the insured due to the accident, in principle, shall be compensated by industrial accident compensation insurance and shall not be compensated by the liability for damages to a third party. Thus, the purpose of the provision is to exclude the accident compensation within the scope of personal compensation of automobile insurance aimed at compensating for the damage to the third party. Thus, if the victim is a person eligible to receive the accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the insurer shall not be liable to compensate the insured in accordance with the above indemnity clause (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da23107 delivered on November 9, 1993).

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Articles 6 (1) and 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), since the business owner is naturally an insurance policyholder of the industrial accident compensation insurance, unless it is a business under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the insurance relationship is established on the commencement of the business, the business owner may claim the payment of insurance benefits under the same Act, as a matter of course, if a worker who belongs to the business after the business commencement suffers from an occupational accident, and the business owner is not entitled to claim the payment of insurance benefits only for an occupational accident that occurred after the procedure such as reporting the establishment of the insurance relationship or paying insurance premiums under Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da4238 of Mar. 14, 195). This does not apply to the case where the business owner discontinues his business after the occurrence of an occupational accident.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in accepting the defendant's defense of discharge, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)