The purpose and scope of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause prescribed by the insurer's exemption from liability where the victim may receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act as an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation.

Article 10 (2) 4 of the General Terms and Conditions for Automobile General Insurance stipulates that the insurer's exemption is an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for damages under the Labor Standards Act, and that the insurer's exemption from exemption is meaningful as a matter of principle to be compensated by industrial accident compensation insurance. Thus, even if it is an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, if it is not possible to receive compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it should be excluded from the application of exemption from exemption from liability

Article 659 of the Commercial Code, Articles 1 and 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Rehabilitation Association Law Office, Attorneys Lee Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

International Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na17050 delivered on October 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

Article 10(2)4 of the instant General Automobile Insurance Clause provides for the insurer’s exemption from liability in cases where the victim 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 Labor Standards Act, as well as the employer’s various liability for compensation in the Labor Standards Act governing labor-management relations, and as the industrial accident compensation insurance system is established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to secure the liability for compensation, it is meaningful that the accident compensation arising from labor-management relations should be compensated by the industrial accident compensation insurance in principle. Thus, even if it is an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, if it is not possible to receive the compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it shall be excluded from the application of the said exemption from the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da29177, Nov. 14, 198; 91Da634, May

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, who died due to the instant traffic accident, is an employee of the Marina District Department, and seven employees including the non-party 2, who were the chief of the Mina District Department on the day of the instant traffic accident, were killed due to the instant traffic accident in which the non-party 1 was involved in the instant accident in order to attend the monthly conference opened at the Mina District Department, which is located in the Mina District Department, and the plaintiff's business is an occupational accident. In addition, the plaintiff's business is a business or business place to which the Labor Standards Act applies, and the above deceased shall be a person entitled to accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act. However, the plaintiff's rehabilitation business constitutes health and social welfare business under the Korean Industrial Standards Classification, and does not constitute a business or business place subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act pursuant to Article 4

Therefore, the deceased could not receive compensation for the death of the deceased due to the accident of this case. Thus, the deceased ruled that they are excluded from exemption under Article 10 (2) 4 of the above General Automobile Insurance Clause.

The above determination of the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no illegality of erroneous interpretation of the exemption clause such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)