[1] The meaning of "other persons" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and in a case where one of multiple operators for the same motor vehicles is damaged by the accident of the relevant motor vehicle, whether it can be argued that the other operator is "other persons" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (negative with qualification)

[2] The meaning of a provision that compensates "in excess of the amount payable or payable as Ⅰ for personal compensation" as to the insurer's liability for personal compensation pursuant to Ⅱ under the general terms and conditions of the business automobile insurance

[3] Whether a person who leases and operates an insured automobile from an insured insured person constitutes an insured person with consent under the general terms and conditions of the business automobile insurance (affirmative)

[1] The term "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who operates an automobile for his own sake and a person other than the driver of the automobile in question. Thus, even if one of the multiple operators who exist in the same automobile sustains damage from the accident in question, the operator of the automobile in question cannot assert that he is another person under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act. However, it is only possible to assert that he is another person only when it appears that the other party could have easily prevented the occurrence of the accident, compared to the driver's control and operational profit of the person in question.

[2] Article 10 of the General Terms and Conditions for Business Automobile Insurance provides for the insurer's liability for compensation as stipulated in Section Ⅱ, and provides that "the insurer's liability for compensation shall be limited to the damages suffered by the insured vehicle's death or injury caused by the accident of the insured vehicle which occurred during its possession, use, or management as well as the amount paid as Ⅰ for personal compensation or the amount exceeding the amount payable as Ⅰ for personal compensation in case the insured vehicle is not admitted as Ⅰ for personal compensation." The purport of the provision is that the insurer shall deduct the insured vehicle from the amount payable as Ⅰ for personal compensation and compensate only the remainder of the damages, if the insured vehicle is paid or may be paid as Ⅰ for personal compensation among the damages suffered by the insured vehicle's legal liability for compensation.

[3] A person who leases an insured automobile from an insured insured person shall be deemed to be a person who operates an insured automobile with permission from an insured person under the general terms and conditions of the business car insurance.

[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 659 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da46613 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2668), Supreme Court Decision 97Da12884 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2861), Supreme Court Decision 99Da22328 delivered on September 17, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2190) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 99Da68027 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1275)

Park Jong-seok et al. (Attorneys Kim Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na62646 delivered on May 19, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The term "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") refers to "a person who operates an automobile on his/her own behalf and a person other than the driver of the relevant automobile, except for the driver (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da22328, Sept. 17, 199). Thus, even in cases where one of multiple operators who exist in the same automobile sustains damage from the accident of the relevant automobile, the operator cannot assert that he/she is another person as provided in Article 3 of the Act against the other operator. However, in principle, only if it appears that the other party could easily prevent the occurrence of the accident compared to the operation control and operational profit of the operator who suffered the accident, it can be argued that he/she is a third person (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da12884, Aug. 29, 197).

However, according to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below, the deceased was driving the instant vehicle owned by the non-party company by leasing it to KRW 173,700 from the non-party company, the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), and died by causing the instant accident that conflict with the vehicle located in the opposite vehicle in the center line with the driver's attention. Thus, at the time of the instant accident, the above deceased was an operator with operating control and operating interests for the vehicle involved in the accident, who has operated the vehicle as an operator with the driver's control and operating interests for the vehicle involved in the accident, and could have prevented the occurrence of the accident more directly and specifically than the non-party company, who is the owner of the vehicle, and therefore, the above deceased cannot assert that the non-party company is a third party as prescribed in

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on vehicle operation control.

2. On the second, third, and fourth grounds

Article 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Business Automobile Insurance applicable to this case provides that "the insurer's liability for compensation shall be defined as "the insurer's liability for damages" as provided for in Article 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Business Automobile Insurance provides that "if the insured has not joined the Personal Compensation I, the personal liability shall not be paid as I, or if the insured motor vehicle's liability for damages is not covered by the Personal Compensation I, the personal liability shall not exceed the amount that can be paid as the Personal Compensation I, unless the insured has legal liability for damages, the insured motor vehicle shall be deducted from the amount of the liability for compensation, and the remainder shall be compensated only if the insured motor vehicle is not covered by the relationship between the insured and the tort liability under the Civil Act and the victim's liability for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, or if the insured motor vehicle is not covered by the General Terms and Conditions of the Accident Compensation I, the insured motor vehicle's liability for compensation shall not be applied to the case where the insured is paid as the personal liability for damages exceeding Class I.

Therefore, the court below erred in finding that the defendant's liability for compensation under Section II arises only when the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case exceeds 30,000,000 won, which is the limit of the amount that can be paid to the insured as Class I. However, it can be said that the person who leases the insured motor vehicle from the registered insured as the deceased is "the person who operates the insured motor vehicle with permission from the registered insured" (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da68027, Apr. 25, 200), which applies to this case, Article 11 (2) Item 3 of the General Automobile Insurance Clause of the Commercial Act provides that the damage suffered by the "the person who operates the insured motor vehicle with permission from the registered insured" shall be exempted from the liability for compensation under Section II, and therefore the court below's decision denying the defendant's liability for compensation by Section II is justified in its conclusion.

Therefore, the above mistake of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of liability II for personal compensation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or in determining whether the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case exceeds the limit of the amount that can be paid to personal compensation I, the ground of appeal pointing out that there was errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence and the calculation of consolation money, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, cannot be

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)