[1] The meaning of "serious negligence" under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which provides for "compensation for damage caused by a tort that causes the life or body of another person by gross negligence" as one of non-exempt claims

[2] The case holding that in a case where a car running the national highways of a two-lane line was caused to death by shocking the victim who was under snow removal operations in the opposite lane beyond the central line, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the accident was caused by the perpetrator's "serious negligence", the damage claim therefrom does not constitute non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

[1] "Serious negligence" under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which provides for "liability for damages caused by a tort that causes damage to another person's life or body by gross negligence, as one of non-exempt claims, refers to a significant breach of the duty of care required to the general public, such as failure to perform any such act, even though the debtor could have easily predicted that the result of the infringement on his/her life or body would occur if he/she paid a little attention to any act, even if he/she could have continuously continued such act or committed any act by taking full care, if he/she would have easily avoided the result of the infringement on his/her life or body.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a car driving the national highway of a two-lane line caused the death of a victim who was moving beyond the central line to the opposite lane by shocking him, in light of various circumstances, such as the situation at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident, etc., the damage claim therefrom does not constitute non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the damage claim therefrom is not a non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, on the ground that the perpetrator could have easily predicted the result of the damage to the victim's life or body solely due to a little attention, in light of

[1] Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act / [2] Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm National, Attorneys Do Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Ba-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na37352 decided October 8, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main purpose of the bankruptcy system is to ensure that all creditors are equally repaid their claims and, at the same time, to exempt the obligor from liability for remaining obligations through the procedure for exemption and to provide the opportunity to reproduce and restore economically. Article 349 of the former Bankruptcy Act ( repealed by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005) provides that one of non-exempt claims is "compensation for damages caused by bad faith by the bankrupt (Article 3)" and Article 566 of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; Article 566 of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "when the debtor intentionally causes damages (Article 3) caused by tort (Article 4) caused by death or physical injury of another person by gross negligence)" and the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "where it is acknowledged that the debtor would have easily avoided the debtor's life or physical discretion by taking into account any of the grounds for non-permission (Article 564 (1) of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act).

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record, Plaintiff 2: (a) operated a passenger car owned by Plaintiff 1 on January 22, 2003 (vehicle registration number omitted); (b) operated the National Highway No. 46 on the Gangseo-gu, Yang-gun, Yangwon-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangwon-gun, Yangwon-gun, both of which are located on the side of the Gangwon-do, and tried to find and walk out the Nonparty who was in the process of snow removal on the street on the opposite side of the road; and (c) it caused the death of the Nonparty by shocking the front side of the said passenger car beyond the central line; and (d) it was difficult for the Plaintiffs to have been aware of the fact that the traffic accident occurred on the road of this case, which was installed at the center of 5.6 meters wide line, without any distinction between the first and the second driver’s license of this case and the second driver’s license of this case on the day of the accident; and (d) it was difficult for the Nonparty 2 to be found to have been driving on the road.

In the same purport, the court below's maintenance of the first instance court's decision that the damage claim caused by the above traffic accident did not constitute non-exempt claims under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)