Under the terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation, and can receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the purpose and scope of the exemption clause stipulated by the insurer's exemption.

In case where the victim of an accident is an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for damage under the Labor Standards Act in the comprehensive liability insurance contract for automobile insurance, the provisions of the insurance clauses that stipulate not to compensate for the loss suffered by the insured due to the accident, in principle, shall be compensated by industrial accident compensation insurance and shall not be included in the scope of personal compensation of automobile insurance for the purpose of compensating for the loss to a third party. Thus, in case where the employee of the insured liable to compensate for damage is the victim, the insurer is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act as well as the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in order for the insurer to be entitled to receive the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Articles 659 and 719 of the Commercial Act; Article 4 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see current Article 5)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da4424 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1190), Supreme Court Decision 93Da4238 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1596), Supreme Court Decision 95Da39540 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 148)

Won National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

International Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Noh Jae-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 97Na5187 delivered on November 6, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below acknowledged that the Plaintiff Union is engaged in the purchase and sale business, warehouse business, transportation business, and credit business, but the majority of its employees are engaged in the credit business part, and even in the 194-year profit size as at the time of the accident of this case, the profits earned from the credit business part in the credit business part exceeds the total amount of profits earned from the remaining business part. In light of the contents and size of each business and the number of employees engaged in each business part, the Plaintiff Union constitutes a place of business which mainly engages in the credit business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea, and thus, it does not constitute a business or a place of business subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act under the proviso to Article 4 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 2 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14628 of Apr. 15, 1995).

2. The purpose of this clause is to exclude the liability clause of the automobile insurance contract which provides that the insurer shall, in principle, be compensated for the damages suffered by the insured from the accident, in case where the victim of the accident is an employee who is liable for compensation as an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act, from the scope of compensation for the personal damage of the automobile insurance aimed at compensating for the damages suffered by the insured through industrial accident compensation insurance and compensating for the damages to a third party. Thus, in case where the insured employee who is liable for compensation is the victim, the insurer may not only receive the accident compensation pursuant to the Labor Standards Act but also receive the insurance benefits pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da4238, Mar. 14, 1995).

In the same purport, the court below's decision is just in holding that the non-party who is the victim of the accident of this case as an employee of the plaintiff association because the plaintiff association, the insured of the automobile insurance of this case, does not fall under the business or business place subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, cannot receive insurance benefits under the above Act, and thus, the defendant, the insurer, is not exempted from insurance benefits under the exemption provision of the standardized contract. The plaintiff association subscribed to the accident compensation deduction for the purpose of the accident compensation for its officers and employees, and the non-party also does not change because it is the beneficiary of the contract.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)