[1] The legislative intent of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[2] The scope of "in the case of being subscribed to insurance or mutual aid" subject to special cases under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[3] The case holding that Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents applies to the case where even if the defendant caused a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle owned by another person, if the insurance purchased by the motor vehicle and the total amount of damages sustained by the victim due to the insurance purchased by

[1] Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "in case where a vehicle which caused a traffic accident is insured or subscribed to mutual aid under the provisions of Articles 4 and 126 through 128 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, or Article 51 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, the driver of the vehicle who committed the crime as provided in the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act shall not be prosecuted." This purpose is to improve the convenience of people's lives by introducing an insurance system related to the operation of the vehicle, by inducing the vehicle to join it, by introducing the insurance system related to the operation of the vehicle, by securing prompt and reliable compensation for damages caused by the traffic accident and by exempting the driver who caused the traffic accident from criminal punishment, and by preventing the mass operation of the previous offender.

[2] The term "case where a vehicle causing a traffic accident is covered by special cases under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" means not only ① the case where the "vehicle causing a traffic accident" is covered by insurance or mutual aid (hereinafter referred to as "insurance") but also the case where the "motor vehicle driver" is covered by the insurance related to the operation of the motor vehicle, but also the case where the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of compensation for the traffic accident under Article 4 (2) of the same Act is granted to the victim, as well as the case where the vehicle causing a traffic accident is insured and the driver of the motor vehicle is also insured related to the operation of the motor vehicle, even if the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of the compensation for the traffic accident under Article 4 (2) of the same Act is not granted to the victim, each insurance shall be included in the case where each of the insurance policies is mutually complementary and it is granted to the victim the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of compensation for the traffic accident under Article 4 (2) of the same Act.

[3] The case holding that Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents applies to the case where, even if the defendant was involved in an accident caused by occupational negligence while driving a vehicle owned by another person, part of the damages for traffic accidents is guaranteed in accordance with the "Special Terms and Conditions for Operation of other Vehicles" of A Automobile Insurance, which had been admitted to a separate vehicle, and the remainder is guaranteed by B Automobile Insurance, which has been admitted to the vehicle itself, since both insurance are applied mutually complementaryly, and the right to prompt and accurate damages for traffic accidents

[1] Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [2] Articles 1, 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [3] Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2092 Decided June 12, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1012)

Defendant

Kim Byung-su

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On February 24, 2009, the Defendant (vehicle No. 1 omitted) was a person driving a cargo vehicle. At around 12:50 on February 24, 2009, the Defendant was negligent by failing to perform his duty of care to check whether there is a vehicle crossing the signal signal in the vicinity of the extreme motor vehicle market located adjacent to the Busan Jung-gu Repair-dong 2, and in proceeding an intersection without signal lights into the area of the main electric railroad, from the area of the main engine to the area of the Busan Jung-gu, the Defendant suffered injury and injury to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, by failing to perform his duty of care to check and drive the intersection well, while neglecting his duty of care to check and drive (vehicle No. 2 omitted) that the victim is driving by entering the intersection from the left side of the proceeding direction to the right side.

2. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, the following facts are recognized:

A. The freight truck (vehicle No. 1 omitted) 1t, which is the vehicle driven by the Defendant at the time of the instant case, was owned by Nonindicted 1, and the comprehensive automobile insurance was purchased under the limited driving agreement for one registered insured to Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., with the insured Nonindicted 1 as Nonindicted 1.

B. At the time of the instant case, Non-Indicted 2, the Defendant’s wife at the time of Non-Indicted 2, as to the vehicles (vehicle number 3 omitted), was insured by the Korean Commercial Accident Insurance Co., Ltd. with the content of compensation such as Non-Indicted 1 (the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act), personal compensation II (unlimited), personal compensation (50 million won), personal damage (the death and disability of KRW 30 million, injury 15 million), personal injury (the maximum amount of KRW 200 million), and non-life insurance (the accident of KRW 30 million).

C. The above automobile insurance policy, which Nonindicted 2 subscribed, is automatically applied to the insured as “injury caused by an uninsured motor vehicle,” and its content is an insurance policy in which the insured (the spouse of the insured) can be regarded as an insured motor vehicle and receive compensation from the insurance company by deeming it as an insured motor vehicle in light of the general terms and conditions of the other motor vehicle operated by the insured (the spouse of the insured) as being legally liable for damages due to a large-scale accident or a physical accident that occurred while driving another motor vehicle.

3. Determination

A. Article 4(1) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “If a vehicle causing a traffic accident is insured or subscribed to mutual aid under the provisions of Articles 4 and 126 through 128 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, or Article 51 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, the driver of the vehicle who committed a crime as provided in the main sentence of Article 3(2) of this Act shall not be prosecuted.” The purpose of this Act is to improve the convenience of people’s lives by introducing an insurance system related to the operation of a vehicle to ensure prompt and reliable compensation for damages caused by a traffic accident by inducing the vehicle to subscribe, and by exempting the driver who caused a traffic accident from criminal punishment, removing the legal decentralization and side effects caused by a traffic accident in advance, and preventing the mass distribution of ex-Korean offenders.”

B. Meanwhile, the term "insurance or mutual aid" in Article 4 (2) of the same Act provides that "in the case of a traffic accident, an insurer under the Insurance Business Act or a mutual aid business operator under the Land Transport Business Act or a mutual aid business operator under the Trucking Transport Business Act shall pay the full amount of ordinary expenses for the medical expenses of the victim in lieu of the insured or members of the mutual aid association regardless of whether the agreement on the compensation for damages has been reached between the insured or members of the mutual aid association under the insurance policy or the terms and conditions of mutual aid approved, and the standard amount of payment prescribed in the insurance policy or mutual aid agreement for other damages shall be paid first under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and ultimately, in order to apply the above special provisions, the term "whether or not the insured or members of the mutual aid association have ultimately covered the total amount of the compensation for damages caused by the traffic accident of the insured or members of the mutual aid association" is an important factor. In other words, if an insurance contract guaranteeing the rights of the victim has been concluded, it may be treated equally as a driver, regardless of the subject matter of the insurance policy.

C. In light of the above purpose and legislative intent of the Act on Special Cases and the interpretation of the relevant statutes, including Article 4(2) of the Special Act, if the right to prompt and accurate compensation for traffic accident damages is granted to the victim in application of the special provisions under the Act on Special Cases, it shall be deemed that there is no reason to regard the effect of the “accident vehicle”’s ordinary comprehensive vehicle insurance policy, whether the “accident driver” is an effect of the insurance policy related to the operation of a vehicle, whether the “accident driver” is an effect of the accident vehicle insurance policy, the effect of the “accident vehicle”’s automobile insurance policy, and the “accident driver” as an effect of the insurance policy related to the operation of

D. Therefore, the term "the case of having subscribed to the insurance or mutual aid (hereinafter collectively referred to as "insurance") subject to special cases such as criminal punishment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Traffic Accidents" includes not only ① the case of having subscribed to the above insurance, but also the case where the "motor vehicle driver" has the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of damages for traffic accidents as stipulated in Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Traffic Accidents, even if he/she has subscribed to the insurance related to the operation of the motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2092, Jun. 12, 2008) but also the case where the motor vehicle which caused the traffic accident is insured and the driver of the motor vehicle is also insured related to the operation of the motor vehicle, any insurance alone does not grant the victim the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of damages for traffic accidents as stipulated in Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Traffic Accidents.

E. In the case of this case, in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance for Business of the Korean Commercial Accident Insurance Co., Ltd. in which the defendant subscribed, if the defendant suffered damage due to the personal accident that occurred while driving the automobile of this case, the compensation for the damage corresponding to "B" out of the liability to compensate for the damage. On the other hand, the compensation for the damage corresponding to "I" which is not guaranteed in the above insurance is guaranteed by the insurance of the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., which is the vehicle (vehicle No. 1 omitted) which the defendant was driving, by the insurance of the vehicle of which the defendant was driving and the total amount of the compensation for the damage suffered by the victim from the insurance purchased by the defendant in connection with the operation of the vehicle. In other words, this case constitutes the case as provided in Article 4(1) of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Act.

F. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the procedure of prosecution is invalid because it violates the provisions of law.

Judges Kim Jong-soo