The case holding that de facto mother is included in the mother (mother) of a named insured under the special terms and conditions of limited driving for family drivers.

The case holding that the scope of family under the special terms and conditions for limited driving of family drivers is not necessarily limited to the legal family relationship, but it should be deemed that the actual parent of the registered insured is included in the parent under the special terms and conditions for limited driving of family drivers, since the scope of family under the special terms and conditions for limited driving of family drivers is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship, and the actual family community is formed

Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2007Gadan20531 Decided February 12, 2008

July 17, 2008

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 19,493,165 won with 5% interest per annum from October 10, 2007 to August 28, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. One-fourth of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 26,03,165 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day when the copy of the claim and the ground modification application of this case was served to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9 through 11, and Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers):

A. On November 2006, Nonparty 2, the father of the Plaintiff, entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant that limits the driver to his family members aged 26 years or older (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s (vehicle No. omitted), the insurance period from November 30, 2006 to November 30, 2007, the collateral line from November 30, 2007, the personal injury first, the personal injury, the personal bodily injury, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the Plaintiff’s body injury, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the driver by a special agreement.

B. On December 27, 2006, Nonparty 1 driven Nonparty 2 while driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle along one lane in the white valley in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and operated the steering gear on the opposite vehicle, but falling on the side of the road due to the failure to drive the steering gear (hereinafter “instant accident”). Nonparty 1, who was on board the said vehicle due to the said accident, sustained an injury, such as a flaverization, which requires approximately 10 weeks of treatment, and the Plaintiff sold the said vehicle at KRW 6,540,00.

C. On February 4, 1994, Nonparty 2 married with Nonparty 1 and reported the marriage with Nonparty 2 under the name of Nonparty 1, including the Plaintiff. However, upon Nonparty 2’s business failure, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 were urged to demand the debt, which led to a divorce on March 15, 2003.

D. The non-party 2, upon filing a report of divorce, moved to a different domicile on the resident registration, but in fact, the non-party 2 was living together with the plaintiff, who is the non-party 1 and his child, and was living together with the non-party 3. On January 12, 2008, the non-party 1 filed a report of divorce again.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that, since the non-party 1 who caused the accident of this case is not a legal mother of the plaintiff, it is not included in the scope of family members stipulated in the special terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, the defendant has no obligation to pay insurance proceeds

As to this, the plaintiff's leader was living together with the non-party 2 and the non-party 10 years of the plaintiff's denial as the plaintiff's leader, and actually living together with the plaintiff. Thus, the non-party 1 is included in the scope of family under the above special terms and conditions. Even if the non-party 1 is not included in the scope of family under the above terms and conditions, the non-party 4, who is an employee of the defendant company, was well aware of the fact that the non-party 1 was actually a mother of the defendant company at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, and did not explain such fact to the plaintiff that the mother of the non-party 4, who is the non-party 1, was not actually a mother of the above non-party 1 under the special terms and conditions for limited driving of the family, and the defendant did not explain such fact at all. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay insurance money to the plaintiff 26,03,165

(b) Scope of family members under special terms and conditions for limited driving of family drivers;

(1) Automobile insurance is a non-life insurance to compensate for the loss of the insured insured caused by an accident of an automobile, which is the most important factor in the risk assessment. Therefore, if the scope of the driver who drives an insured automobile is set in the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, the insurance premium may be calculated according to the driver’s tendency, and if the scope of the driver who drives an insured automobile is set in the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, it may be set lower the insurance premium than in a case where anyone is not superior

Unlike the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance contract, the purpose of the special agreement on limited driving of family drivers, such as the insurance contract of this case, is to reduce the insurance premium instead of limiting the insurance premium by the insured's family members who are in the same quality in using the insured automobile in relation to the use of the insured automobile.

(2) According to the above facts, although Nonparty 1 is not a mother under the laws of the plaintiff, it is expected that the family community was formed as a member of his family for 13 years up to the time of the accident, including the legal marriage period of Nonparty 2, the father of his family for 10 years, and the Plaintiff was using an insured automobile while serving as his mother, and such family relationship would continue in the future by reporting the marriage with Nonparty 2 again. In light of the purport of the special terms and conditions as above, in particular, in light of the special terms and conditions, “the children, children, children, children, children, children, and women born in a de facto marital relationship or de facto marital relationship with the former insured, their parents living together with their spouse, their spouses under the law, their spouses under the law, or their de facto marital relationship, or the spouse, children, children, and women born in a de facto marital relationship with the latter, and the scope thereof is considerably broad, the scope of family relationship does not necessarily be limited to the family relationship under the law, and the Defendant shall be deemed to include the Plaintiff’s family member under the special terms and conditions of this case.

C. Scope of liability

(1) The defendant's assertion

In this regard, the defendant asserts that (A) since the claimant for insurance proceeds equivalent to the medical expenses of Nonparty 1 arising from the accident of this case is the victim himself, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim insurance proceeds equivalent to the above medical expenses, and even in the scope of payment, the plaintiff is obligated to pay insurance proceeds only within the limit of KRW 5,00,000, which is the maximum amount of insurance coverage for Nonparty 1's class of injury, and (b) since the plaintiff sold the vehicle of this case after the accident of this case, the amount equivalent to the sales proceeds should be deducted from the insurance proceeds that

(2) Determination:

(A) Determination of human damage (treatment cost)

On the other hand, since the victim's direct right to claim for the insurer and the insured's right to claim for insurance against the insurer are separate claims, the plaintiff, the insured under the insurance contract of this case, has a right to claim for insurance separate from Nonparty 1, who is the victim, and according to the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act [Attachment I] of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the insurance limit amount for class 5 (the sum of the body frames) like Nonparty 1 at the time of the accident of this case, is KRW 9,00,00, and the defendant is obligated to pay all of the medical expenses of Nonparty 1 within the above limit amount to the plaintiff. Thus, this part of

(B) Determination of physical damage

On the other hand, since there is no dispute between the parties that sold the instant car damaged by the Plaintiff after the instant accident to KRW 6,540,000, the Defendant’s insurance money to be paid to the Plaintiff due to physical damage caused by the instant accident is KRW 13,460,000 (= KRW 20,000,000 - KRW 6,540,000) which deducts the above sales price from the secured amount for the self-vehicle damages agreed upon at the time of the instant insurance contract. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

(d) Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 19,493,165 won insurance money (=6,03,165 won + 13,460,000 won) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from October 10, 2007 to August 28, 2008, which is the date when the defendant delivered a copy of the claim for the claim of this case and the claim for alteration of the cause of this case sought by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)