Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm White General Law Office, Attorney Seo-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 (Law Firm P & P, Attorney Kang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 4, 2008

Jeonju District Court Decision 2006Da38989 decided Oct. 19, 2007; 2007Da3270 decided Oct. 19, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Purport of claim

On December 5, 2005, around 19:30 on the 19:30-1, 2005, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only the Defendant) 2 did not have a liability to pay insurance proceeds to the Defendants of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter only the Plaintiff) with respect to an accident that occurred due to the dropout of the getting off from the front-ri 340-1 on the street in front of the Dog-ri, Cheonggdong-gun, the Dogdong-gun, the Dogdong-gun, the Dog-ri,

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay 150,000,000 won to defendant 2 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant 2's counterclaim is dismissed, and the plaintiff's main claim is accepted.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-1 and 2-2, the testimony of the non-party witness of the trial court, and the fact-finding results of each fact-finding with the director of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the director of the Nam-gu and the director of the branch office of the party, and the director of the Nam-gu Medical Center, and there is no counter-proof.

(a) Details of the insurance contract;

On March 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant 1 to compensate for self-physical accidents, etc. arising from the operation of the instant vehicle during the said period from March 12, 2005 to March 12, 2006, with respect to the (vehicle number omitted) of the said vehicle’s ownership (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The main contents are as follows.

(1) Under the instant insurance contract, the term “self-physical accident” means that “the insured compensates for any loss incurred by the death or injury of an insured motor vehicle caused by an insured motor vehicle accident that occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle,” and the insurance proceeds are classified as death insurance proceeds, injury insurance proceeds, and follow-up disability insurance proceeds. The insurance proceeds covered by Defendant 1 in relation to a self-physical accident are KRW 50 million for the injury per victim and KRW 100 million for the after-hand disability.

(2) Under the instant insurance contract, the injury insurance amount out of the insurance amount caused by one’s own physical accident is to pay the actual medical expenses within the limit of the insurance amount by class of injury corresponding to the amount of the injury insurance amount indicated in the insurance policy according to the table of the classification of injury criteria for payment of one’s own physical accident and the table of the amount of the insurance amount by class of class. The injury insurance amount was to pay the insurance amount by grade corresponding to the amount of the insurance amount of the subsequent disability insurance amount stated in the insurance policy according to the “the table of the classification of injury corresponding to the criteria for payment of one’s own

(3) According to the insurance contract of this case, the amount of injury insurance for the class 1 of injury is KRW 50 million in the case of the purchase price of insurance for the class 50 million, and according to the "the classification of disability after the payment standards for self-physical accidents and the list of the purchase amount of insurance for each class", if the purchase price of insurance for the class 10 million won is 100 million, the amount of after-paid disability insurance for the class 1 of disability is 100 million in the case of the purchase price of insurance for the class 1 of disability. The degree of injury is based on the classification of injury as stipulated in the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the disability grade is based on the classification of after-paid disability as stipulated in the attached Table 2

(4) On the other hand, class 1 injury listed in the attached Table 1 of the above Enforcement Decree provides that “an injury, etc. to which the th degree of injury caused by blood transfusions in the outer two mouths is stipulated.” A class 1 disability listed in the attached Table 2 of the above Enforcement Decree provides that “a person who completely loses the math function and food,” a person who has a significant obstacle to the mathy’s function and mental function, a person who ought to be protected at all times.”

(5) Under the instant insurance contract, Defendant 1 stated the insurance policy as the insured, but the scope of the insured entitled to claim insurance proceeds was included in the scope of the insured, other than the registered insured as specified in the insurance policy.

(b) Occurrence of insurance accidents;

(1) Defendant 2, as Defendant 1’s father, was 191cm in height and was a healthy person whose body weight was 100 kilograms. On December 5, 2005, Defendant 2 was driving the instant vehicle and temporarily stopped the instant vehicle in front of the house located in the front west-gun, dong-gun, dong-gun, which was located in the frontwest-gun, while driving the instant vehicle on the front side of the frontwest-gun, and then, Defendant 2 was faced with the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). In order to help the Nonparty, who was accompanied by the driver’s seat, was on the front side of the frontwest-gun, by opening a driver’s seat and getting off the front gate in order to help the driver’s seat get off the front gate.

(2) Defendant 1 was aware of the occurrence of the instant accident from the Nonparty, his mother, and reported the accident to the Namwon Fire Station 119 Safety Center first, around 20:20 on that day. Defendant 1 transferred Defendant 2 to the Namwon Medical Center around 21:39 on the same day.

(3) Around December 7, 2005, Defendant 2 suffered from injury, such as acute cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphalphal alphal alphal alphal alphalphal alphal alphalphal alphal alphalphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal al.

2. Determination:

A. Whether a self-physical accident occurs

First, as to whether the instant accident constitutes one’s own physical accident under the instant insurance contract, the term “if the insured is due to an accident of an insured motor vehicle which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle” refers to a case where the insured motor vehicle was injured or died due to such an accident while the insured motor vehicle was in possession, use, or management in accordance with its usage (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46375, 46382, Dec. 8, 200), and the use of the motor vehicle in accordance with its usage refers to the use of various devices installed for each device according to its respective purpose of use, and even if the motor vehicle is not in the state of driving, it includes the use of various auxiliary devices such as opening and closing the door from the front and rear stage of driving to the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46375, Aug. 23, 199; 209Da959495, Feb. 9, 1994).

Based on these legal principles and facts, Defendant 2 was faced with the instant accident on the wind, which lost the balance of the instant vehicle caused by a ice ice, which is a sloped side of the vehicle, after temporarily stopping the instant vehicle, while driving on the road and headlight, and the instant accident was caused by an abnormal contact with the vehicle in the course of leaving the vehicle without properly verifying the fact that it is inappropriate for the vehicle to drive the vehicle while snow at the time of the accident. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the instant accident, since the abnormal contact with the vehicle was lost due to the abnormal contact with the vehicle in the course of leaving the vehicle without properly verifying it. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the instant vehicle was caused by the injury of the vehicle during the course of driving the vehicle by opening a door at the stop immediately after the driving of the vehicle and using the vehicle in accordance with its usage.

Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the injury insurance amount and the injury insurance amount according to his degree of injury and the disability grade under the insurance contract of this case to Defendant 2, the insured under the insurance contract of this case.

In this regard, the Plaintiff argues to the effect that it is difficult for his family members to believe that the instant accident was caused by an abnormal accident, which occurred during the possession, use, and management of the instant vehicle, in light of the structure of the instant vehicle or the low-class situation. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion appears to be based on the premise that the instant accident was not an insurance accident if it was caused by an auxiliary agent and it was beyond the scope of the auxiliary agent. However, as seen earlier, the key point to be examined in relation to whether the instant accident was an insurance accident is not the excess of the auxiliary agent, but rather, whether the instant accident was caused by the external accident of the instant vehicle, which was owned, used, and managed by the Defendant 2, and whether it was caused by the external accident of the instant vehicle immediately after driving the vehicle, and whether it was caused by the external accident of the instant vehicle without being aware that it was caused by the external accident or the accident of the Defendant 2, namely, whether it was caused by the external accident or the accident of the instant vehicle, even if it was not related to the accident.

(b) Scope of insurance proceeds;

According to the above facts, since the injury or the aftermath disability suffered by Defendant 2 falls under the category of injury or the aftermath disability of the class 1 and the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act, the plaintiff's insurance amount to be paid to Defendant 2 shall be the injury insurance amount of the class 1 of the injury grade, within the insurance coverage amount of KRW 50 million, and according to the evidence 5-1 to 29, the amount is 21,041,640 won (the total medical expenses of KRW 76,741,98, which was actually borne by Defendant 2), and the latter disability insurance amount of the disability of Grade 1 of the disability grade is KRW 100,000,000.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, according to the insurance contract of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to Defendant 2 the sum of KRW 121,041,640 (21,041,640 + 100 million) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 8, 2007, which is the day following the service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case until October 19, 2007, where it is deemed reasonable for the Plaintiff to dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay or the scope thereof.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim against the defendants of this case under the premise that the accident of this case does not constitute a self-physical accident as stipulated in the insurance contract of this case is all dismissed. The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant of this case is all dismissed within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining counter-claim claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining counter-claim claims shall be dismissed without any justifiable reasons. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and reasonable, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed (the plaintiff's ground is that the plaintiff's external dumping of this case is for the plaintiff's application for engineering appraisal and on-site verification in order to prove the illegality of the plaintiff's assertion that the external dumping of this case belongs to the subsidiary equipment of this case after the conclusion of the court of first instance. Accordingly, the plaintiff's application for the resumption of pleading is not accepted since it seems that the proper appraiser's selection itself is very difficult to confirm it through on-site verification, and it is also difficult to confirm the accident of this case as seen above.

Judges Yellow-Hahn (Presiding Judge)