[Defendant-Appellant] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sinro, Attorney Lee Young-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Dong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

October 16, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Ghana5802107 Decided February 7, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,864,400 won with 5% interest per annum from May 23, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the name of “LIG Handling Business Operator” as the insured of this*, and the Defendant was an insurer who originally owned by Nonparty 1 (vehicle No. 1 omitted) and entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 34-wheeled Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “instant accident vehicle”).

B. On July 5, 2012, Nonparty 1: (a) decided to replace the instant vehicle with a new lane; (b) purchased a new vehicle at the Hyundai Motor Vehicle’s place of business (vehicle No. 2 omitted); (c) transferred the instant vehicle to Nonparty 2, an employee of the said place of business, along with relevant documents; and (d) registered the said vehicle under Nonparty 1 as to the said (vehicle No. 2 omitted) on the same day, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant and the previous motor vehicle insurance contract substituted the said (vehicle No. 2 omitted) vehicle from the instant vehicle to the said (vehicle No. 2 omitted) vehicle.

C. On July 6, 2012, Nonparty 2, the buyer, transferred the instant vehicle to Nonparty 3, an exporter of a used vehicle, and Nonparty 3, the new buyer, requested the transportation of the said vehicle to Han Union Call Center, which is the consignee. However, Nonparty 4, the employees of the Joint Call Center, at around 11:10 on the same day, was driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle on a two-lane road of the 4-lane-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The back part of the (vehicle number 3 omitted) vehicle (hereinafter “victim”), which was in the atmosphere of the instant vehicle, was shocked with the front-hand part of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

D. On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 1,518,610 won to Nonparty 5, and 1,345,790 won to Nonparty 6 on July 16, 2012, on the grounds of medical expenses and agreement.

E. On July 6, 2012, Nonparty 3 returned the number plate of the instant vehicle involved in the instant accident, and reported the export cancellation on August 16, 2012.

F. The main contents of the Defendant’s automobile insurance policy, which is the existing insurance company for the instant accident vehicle, relating to the “Special Terms and Conditions for Temporary Security” are as follows.

Cover Terms and Conditions of Mandatory Insurance

1. Persons subject to application;

The General Terms and Conditions / [10] Liability for Damages (personal compensation I and Personal Compensation) are automatically applied.

2. Policyholders and the insured;

An insurance company shall, notwithstanding the provisions of the General Terms and Conditions [19] "in the case of transferring the insured vehicle" of the succession to the insurance contract (except where approval is granted), consider the vehicle as an insured vehicle under the General Terms and Conditions [10] liability (i.e., personal and substitute compensation) and the transferee as a policyholder and a named insured.

General Terms and Conditions / [19] Succession to Insurance Contracts

1. Where an insured automobile is transferred;

(1) If the policyholder or the named insured transfers the insured motor vehicle during the insurance period, the rights and obligations of the policyholder and the insured arising under this insurance contract shall not be succeeded to the assignee of the insured motor vehicle. However, if the insurance company notifies in writing that the policyholder wishes to transfer this right and obligations to the assignee and approves it, this insurance contract shall apply to the assignee from the time of approval.

2. Where an insured automobile is replaced.

(1) If the policyholder or the registered insured scraps or transfers the existing insured motor vehicle during the insurance period, and replaces it with another motor vehicle of the same motor vehicle type, the policyholder shall notify the insurance company in writing to the effect that the policyholder will succeed to the replaced motor vehicle, and apply this insurance contract to the replaced motor vehicle from the time the insurance company approves. In this case, the effect of the insurance contract on the existing insured motor vehicle shall be null and void at the time the insurance company approves.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the instant vehicle was transferred to Nonparty 2 on July 5, 2012, the day before the instant accident occurred, and the automobile insurance for the instant vehicle was replaced by a new automobile, as long as Nonparty 2, the purchaser of the instant vehicle, did not subscribe to a new liability insurance with respect to the instant vehicle until the instant accident occurred, the instant vehicle is considered as the Defendant’s liability insurance vehicle according to the “terms of Temporary Security Clause” applicable to the Defendant’s automobile liability insurance I, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the liability insurance amount arising from the instant accident. Since the insurance amount that the Plaintiff paid to the victims is within the limit of the liability insurance amount, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the insurance amount in full.

3. Determination

A. First, according to the circumstances of the above recognition, it is clear that the accident in this case occurred due to neglect of duty of care for the driver of the vehicle involved in this case. Thus, the driver is obliged to compensate for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

B. Next, with regard to whether the defendant is in a state of being effective under the insurance contract for the motor vehicle involved in the accident of this case, even according to the provision, the provision of the special terms and conditions of mandatory insurance is divided into the case where the plaintiff transfers the vehicle to the insured as "1. 1. Succession to the Insurance Contract" and the case where the replacement is made "2. 2. . replacement of the vehicle to the insured". Thus, the above provision of the terms and conditions cannot be deemed to apply to the plaintiff's assertion because the above case constitutes "the replacement of the vehicle to the insured". Further, the purport of the above provision is that the above provision of the terms and conditions is not applicable to the case where the registered insured is temporarily in a state of non-insurance until the expiration of the period of application for the registration of the vehicle ownership transfer (15 days) after the transfer of the registered motor vehicle to the insured, or the accident occurs without the effective insurance contract under the name of the transferee, and thus, it seems that the mandatory insurance is applied by deeming the transferee to be a policyholder and the insured under the existing insurance contract to protect the victim of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jin-hee (Presiding Judge)