[1] In a case where a motor vehicle stops a motor vehicle at a place where it is difficult to safely stop or stops a motor vehicle, or where a motor vehicle is killed or injured due to a fall of a motor vehicle due to its failure to manipulate the transmission apparatus or balk in compliance with its topographical and road conditions (affirmative)

[2] In a case where there exists a direct cause for an accident other than the use under the usage of the pertinent equipment, or where it is temporarily used for any purpose other than the original usage during the course of use under the usage of the equipment, it can be seen as an accident during the operation

[3] The case holding that a truck driver's accident during the operation of a motor vehicle is deemed an accident in case where the driver died while driving the motor vehicle, driving the motor vehicle, driving the motor vehicle, parking the motor vehicle on the company's material storage, parking the motor vehicle in a slope inside the warehouse, leaving the front door of the warehouse and continuing his/her work by using the light above while driving the motor vehicle on the stop, driving the motor vehicle at the speed and driving the motor vehicle on the slope.

[1] In a case where a person dies or is injured due to a failure to manipulate a changeer or brating in line with the topography and road conditions in parking or stopping a motor vehicle at a place where it is difficult to safely drive or stop a motor vehicle, it shall, in principle, be deemed an accident during operation.

[2] In addition to the use under the usage of the devices in question, if there is a direct cause for the accident other than the use under the usage of the devices in question, or if the use under the above method can be evaluated as a cause of the accident as a whole in case where it is temporarily used for any purpose other than the original usage during the use under the usage, it shall also be deemed as an accident during operation.

[3] The case holding that in a case where a truck driver died while driving a truck for the purpose of repairing the kacker car, parking it in the company's material storage, parking in a slope inside the warehouse, leaving the knife in the entrance of the warehouse, leaving the knife onto the knife truck and continuing to work by using the light on the knife driver's knife on the slope, the truck falls under an accident during the operation of the vehicle

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da5183 delivered on August 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2823), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da65936, 65943 Delivered on September 23, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da445, 452 Delivered on March 12, 2004 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Da904 delivered on August 12, 1980 (Gong1980, 13085), Supreme Court Decision 200Da89 delivered on September 8, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2087)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Na6206 Delivered on November 25, 2004

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

원심은 그 채용 증거를 종합하여, 망 소외인(이하 '망인'이라고 한다)은 1999 4. 20.경 피고와 사이에 피보험자를 망인, 보험기간을 1999. 4. 20.부터 2009. 4. 20.까지, 교통상해사망보험금을 5,000만 원, 사망보험금 수익자를 법정상속인, 보험료를 월 35,410원으로 하는 장기상해 애니카운전자보험계약(이하 '이 사건 보험계약'이라고 한다)을 체결하고 그 때부터 보험료를 납부하여 온 사실, 이 사건 보험계약의 내용이 되는 보통약관에서는 피고가 보상하는 손해로 '피보험자가 운행중의 교통승용구에 탑승하지 아니한 때, 운행중의 교통승용구와의 충돌, 접촉, 화재 또는 폭발 등의 교통사고로 인한 손해(보통약관 3(1)①)'를 규정하고 있는 사실, 망인은 2002. 10. 20. 17:30경 청우전설 주식회사의 (차량번호 생략) 활선자동차를 수리할 목적으로 이 사건 화물차를 운전하여 수원시 권선구 소재 한국전설 주식회사의 자재창고에 도착하여 창고 정문 안쪽의 2∼3°내리막 경사지에 이 사건 화물자동차를 주차한 후 하차하여 위 활선자동차의 버킷을 수리하다가 날이 어두워지자 이 사건 화물자동차에 올라 시동을 걸고 전조등을 켠 후 차체를 약간 움직여 위 수리하는 곳을 향하도록 전조등 방향을 조절하고 내려와 그 전조등 불빛을 이용하여 수리를 계속하다가 그로부터 약 5분 정도 경과한 같은 날 18:14경 이 사건 화물자동차가 경사지를 따라 3∼4m 정도 굴러 내려와 그 앞에서 수리작업중이던 망인을 충격하는 바람에 망인이 위 버킷과 화물자동차 사이에 가슴부위가 끼어 사망한 사실, 원고들은 망인의 법정상속인들인 사실 등을 인정하였다.

Furthermore, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs on the ground that the deceased's death in the process does not constitute an insurance accident as stipulated in the above insurance contract, on the ground that the accident of this case was caused by collision with traffic equipment during operation without the deceased on board a traffic vehicle during operation, and constitutes compensation damage under the insurance contract of this case. The deceased's accident of this case is merely a part for continuing to turn on the vehicle of this case for the purpose of identifying the repair work site in light of the parking lot site, the passage after parking, the purpose of use, etc. of the truck of this case, which was revealed in the above facts, that the deceased's safe parking of the truck of this case was caused five minutes after moving the location of the vehicle in the material storage instead of the ordinary traffic site, and because it was difficult to view the accident of this case occurring in the process as an accident during operation of the vehicle.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

According to the general terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract 3(2), the concept of an accident during the operation of an insurance accident is a sudden and rapid accident that occurred while the automobile was used in accordance with the usage of the relevant device. In a case where a person is killed or wounded due to a vehicle's failure to drive an automobile at a place where it is difficult to safely stop or stop, or to operate a speed change or hub in line with the topographical and road conditions, it shall, in principle, be deemed an accident during operation (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da5183, Aug. 26, 1997; 2002Da65936, 65943, Sept. 23, 2003; 2004Da44552, Mar. 12, 2004; 2008Da9840, Sept. 28, 2004; and on the other hand, it shall be deemed that the accident occurred during the operation of an accident other than the aforementioned method.

According to the records, material storage, which is the site of the accident of this case, is Mail without a roof built with a fence at a large size of about 100 square meters. In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, the accident of this case occurred more than five minutes after the operation of the truck on a temporary basis after the operation of the truck of this case was scheduled to use the truck of this case while driving the truck of this case at the end of the accident of this case and driving the truck of this case, it is difficult to view that the direct operation of the accident of this case resulted from the use of the truck of this case for its original purpose other than the parking method of the truck of this case. However, it is difficult to view that the accident of this case was a truck of this case as the material storage of this case as the reason for the safety measures in light of the legal nature of the truck of this case.

Therefore, the accident of this case may be deemed to have occurred because the deceased neglected to take safety measures such as the operation of the related device at the time of parking in the use of the truck of this case, and this shall be deemed to fall under the "accident caused by collision with the traffic equipment during operation, when the insured, who is liable for compensation by the defendant pursuant to the insurance contract of this case, fails to board the traffic equipment during operation." Thus, the judgment of the court below that the accident of this case is difficult to be seen as an accident during operation, which affected the interpretation of the general terms and conditions applicable to the insurance contract of this case, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)