[1] The nature of money that the victim received as agreed money from the perpetrator in the course of investigation or criminal trial

[2] Where the perpetrator of a traffic accident withdraws the money deposited as consolation money by the victim's bereaved family member as the victim's bereaved family member, the case holding that the above deposit has the nature of consolation money and belongs to the insurer's compensation scope under a comprehensive automobile insurance contract

[1] In the course of investigation or criminal trial against the perpetrator of a tort, where the victim agreed that he/she would not receive an agreement from the perpetrator and not be punished for the perpetrator, the amount paid at the time of the agreement shall, in principle, be deemed to have been paid as part of the compensation for damages. The same shall also apply in cases where the perpetrator did not directly pay the amount of criminal agreement to the victim and deposited money with regard

[2] Where the perpetrator of a traffic accident withdraws money deposited as consolation money by the victim's bereaved family as the victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's compensation, the expression of consolation money in a deposit is deemed merely an ordinary person's expression, not a law on consolation money, which is mental damage, among civil damages, and such deposit money belongs to the insurer's scope of compensation under a comprehensive automobile insurance contract

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Articles 3 and 12 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da53942 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3114) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu313 delivered on May 24, 198 (Gong198, 989) Supreme Court Decision 91Da5389 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1477), Supreme Court Decision 91Da18712 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong191, 2357), Supreme Court Decision 94Da14018 delivered on October 14, 194 (Gong194, 2978), Supreme Court Decision 95Da50589 delivered on July 15, 195 (Gong19958)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na16587 delivered on July 24, 1998

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed. This part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, comprehensively based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, concluded an individual automobile insurance contract with the defendant company on March 28, 1996 with respect to the automobile owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "insured automobile"). After that, the non-party 1, his father, driving of the insured vehicle of this case on August 23 of the same year, caused a traffic accident that causes the non-party 1 deceased's death (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased's death"), the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consolation money and compensation amount amount of 10,000,000 won as total sum of 00,000 won as compensation money and compensation amount of 00,000 won, and determined that the non-party 1's compensation money of this case was less than 0,000,000 won for the purpose of calculating the compensation money of this case, the defendant was not liable to compensate the non-party 1's compensation money of this case.

2. In a case where the victim agreed that in the course of investigation or criminal trial with respect to the perpetrator of the tort, the amount paid at the time of the agreement shall be deemed to have been paid as part of the compensation for damages in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu313, May 24, 198; 91Da5389, Apr. 23, 1991; 94Da14018, Oct. 14, 1994). This is the same in a case where the perpetrator did not pay the amount of criminal agreement directly to the victim and deposited money with respect to the punishment for the criminal charge.

However, the court below held that the portion deposited as consolation money is not within the scope of compensation of the insurance contract of this case on the ground that it was paid regardless of the plaintiff's civil liability for damages, on the ground that the deposit was deposited as consolation money and compensation money in the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator. However, as recognized by the court below, it is difficult to conclude that the deposit amount was paid regardless of the plaintiff's civil liability for damages to the deceased or his bereaved family regardless of the amount of compensation, although it is expressed as consolation money, it is difficult to conclude that the amount was paid regardless of the plaintiff's civil liability for damages to the deceased or his bereaved family members, and there is no other material to support this. Thus, the expression of consolation money in the deposit of this case is merely a minor expression of the general public rather than the law for mental compensation, which is a civil liability for damages to the deceased or his bereaved family members. The whole amount of the deposit of this case shall be deemed as having the nature of damage compensation of the plaintiff's civil liability against the deceased or his bereaved family members.

In addition, according to the insurance clause applied to the insurance contract of this case, the defendant company is liable for damages caused by the insured's operation of the insured vehicle or by the insured's legal liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. (No. 2-2, No. 62-63), and the legal liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. shall include liability for mental damage other than the damage caused by the plaintiff's property, as a matter of course, in addition to the damage caused by the victim's or his bereaved family's property, even if the deposit of this case deposited by the plaintiff was deposited as consolation money in addition to the damage caused by the victim's property as well as the damage caused by the victim's or his/her bereaved family's property, it is natural that the damage within the scope of the insurance contract

Therefore, the court below's decision that the portion deposited as consolation money among the deposited money of this case is excluded from the scope of compensation under the insurance contract of this case, is eventually erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal nature of the deposited money of this case or the scope of compensation under the insurance contract of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing this out in the grounds of

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)