[1] The meaning of "accident caused by the intention of the insured," which is an exemption from liability under the automobile insurance clause, and the method of proving it

[2] The case holding that the driver had dolus negligence in the occurrence of the injury in case where the driver caused the injury by breaking the car on the road by driving the car on the blurg in a state of being sold to the driver on the day of departure

[1] The term "accident caused by the intention of the insured, which is an exemption from liability under the automobile insurance policy," refers to the psychological condition of the insured, knowing that the occurrence of a certain result is caused by his/her act, and this shall include not only the conclusive intention but also the dolusence intention. In cases where there is no direct evidence to acknowledge it, the intention of the deliberation such as the intention shall be proved by the method of proving indirect facts that have a considerable relation with the intention in the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relation should be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules.

[2] The case holding that the driver had dolus negligence in the occurrence of the injury in case where the driver caused the injury by breaking the car on the road by driving the car on the blurg in a state of being sold to the driver on the day of departure

[1] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da16771 delivered on March 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 1157) Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3281)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Vindication, Attorneys Jeon Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na12206 delivered on October 27, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the provision of the personal automobile insurance contract applicable to the accident of this case based on its employed evidence (Article 3-1 and Section 11-2 of the Personal Automobile Insurance Contract No. 1), the court below held that the damage caused by the Defendant’s intentional act as the policyholder and the insured would not be compensated. Furthermore, as to the circumstances of the accident, the Defendant recognized that the Nonparty, the taxi driver of this case, who was the taxi driver of this case, was exposed to the accident and stopped according to the stop signal, was 2-3 meters away from the accident, and the Nonparty was 2 was able to have caused the accident before and after the accident of this case, and the Nonparty was able to have caused the accident of this case, and that there was no intention or insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was no injury to the Defendant’s vehicle before and after the accident of this case. Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Nonparty’s accident of this case, which was caused by the Defendant’s intentional act or the Nonparty’s 2nd of the accident of this case.

2. However, it is difficult to accept such measures by the lower court.

The intent stipulated in the terms and conditions of automobile insurance refers to a state of trial conducted by a person knowing that a certain result is likely to arise through his/her act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997). This includes not only conclusive intent but also dolusent intent (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da16771, Mar. 8, 1991). In addition, in a case where there is no direct evidence to acknowledge it, the intent of an internal deliberation, such as intention, must be proved by the method of proving indirect facts that have a substantial relation with the intention, and what constitutes indirect facts that have a considerable relation, should be reasonably determined in accordance with logical and empirical rules.

Even based on the facts established by the court below, the defendant was under the influence of 0.11% alcohol level at the time of blood, but the first accident was committed by the non-party coming to the first accident and coming to the second accident, and the non-party was making a normal stop at the stop signal near the Ro-dong Ro-dong, and the cross-section signal at the intersection was turned to the passing signal, and accordingly, the non-party avoided the non-party for the purpose of starting the car, and then the non-party was 2-3 meters away from the road to the driving signal. The non-party was set up as the front door of the passenger vehicle which the non-party wanted to start to move to the next right door, and the non-party was forced to move to the front door of the vehicle, and the second accident occurred due to the non-party's failure to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, even if the non-party was anticipated to have suffered from the non-party's intentional injury, it can be determined that it was reasonable to conclude that the defendant had suffered from the non-party's fault.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the second accident cannot be deemed as an accident caused by the defendant's intentional or negligent intention is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to intentional negligence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)