(a) The case holding that a taxi driver belonging to a company may receive accident compensation pursuant to the Labor Standards Act because he/she falls under an occupational accident in cases where he/she suffers a traffic accident while getting on or off a taxi of a shift worker in the workplace;

B. Whether the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, which are cited as the reason for the exemption of liability for damages under the Labor Standards Act, are in violation of Articles 659 and 663 of the Commercial Act and thus invalid (negative)

A. The case holding that the death of an employee of the above company constitutes an accident on duty on the ground that the employee's retirement by using the above vehicle constitutes an accident on duty, in case where he was involved in an accident after completing his duties as a driver belonging to the taxi company and leaving his office at his own house, and where he was involved in the accident during his retirement by the means of transportation that the above taxi company allowed implied use by the above taxi company, the driver can receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act on the ground that the employee's retirement by using the above vehicle constitutes an accident on duty.

B. Where the victim of a traffic accident is an employee of the insured who is liable for damages under the Labor Standards Act, who is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance (Article 10(2)4) provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss suffered by the insured due to the accident, and the Labor Standards Act governing the labor-management relations between the employer and the insured stipulates various employer's liability for compensation for the loss caused by the occupational accident. In order to secure such liability, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act establishes the industrial accident compensation insurance system under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to compensate for the loss caused by the occupational accident. The purpose is to exclude the accident compensation arising from the labor-management relations within the scope of the automobile insurance with the aim to compensate for the loss sustained by the third party. Thus, it is difficult to view that the said exemption clause is subject to the application of Article 659 of the Commercial Act intending to exclude the person responsible for the loss compensation from the subject of the insurance protection, and therefore, it cannot be deemed null and void by changing the exemption clause under Article 659 of the Commercial Act.

(a) Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act / Article 659, Article 663 of the Commercial Act, Articles 1 and 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24070 Decided April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1141) (Gong1990, 1141) decided December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 470) 91Da6634 decided May 14, 1991 (Gong191, 1637)

Dongdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Sung-il taxi limited partnership company

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na7120 delivered on June 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court of first instance held that the defendant company's company purchased an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant company's insured and the insurance period from January 16, 1989 to January 16, 199 with respect to the business taxi (vehicle registration number omitted) owned by the defendant company, and that the defendant company's employee is entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, if the victim of the automobile accident is the insured pursuant to the insurance terms and conditions at the time, the plaintiff is not entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and that the non-party 1, the driver of the defendant company, at around February 21, 1989, was not entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and that the non-party 2, the driver of the defendant company, who used the above taxi at the time of death of the non-party 1, who was employed by the non-party 2 while driving the above taxi at the time of death and who was employed by the non-party 2, who had been employed by the defendant company.

In light of relevant evidence and records, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of occupational accidents, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss it.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

Of the comprehensive automobile insurance contracts, the purport of which is to obtain compensation from the insurer for the damage to be incurred by the insured who died or injured due to the operation of automobiles under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is that the insured person is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act. If the insured person is an employee who is liable for compensation and is entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the exemption clause of the comprehensive automobile insurance clauses (Article 10 (2) 4) which provides for the insurer not to compensate for the damage suffered by the insured person due to the accident shall be prescribed in the Labor Standards Act which prescribes various liability for compensation under the Labor Standards Act which prescribes that the insurer shall not compensate for the damage caused by the accident. In order to secure such liability for compensation, the industrial accident compensation insurance system is established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in principle, and the purpose is to exclude the accident compensation arising from the labor-management relations from the scope of compensation for the third person; therefore, it is difficult to see that the insured person is subject to exemption under Article 659 of the Commercial Act or 659 of the Commercial Act.197.

Therefore, on the premise that the above exemption clause is valid, even though the above non-party 2 is a third party who does not fall within the scope of the insured under the above insurance clause, such as the theory of lawsuit, so long as his death as an employee of the defendant company constitutes occupational accident and is entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's liability for paying the insurance amount to the defendant company is not nonexistent under the above exemption clause, is just, and contrary to the above exemption clause, it cannot be accepted to criticize the judgment of the court below in its independent view that the above exemption clause is in violation of the Commercial Act and null and void

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)