(a) The purpose of an exemption clause of the comprehensive automobile insurance clauses which provides for the case of receiving the accident compensation as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act and the scope of its application;

(b) The meaning of “business or workplace which ordinarily employs not less than five workers” and “business which ordinarily employs less than five workers” under subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; and

(c) Conditions which ipso facto workers of the business owner who becomes policyholders of the industrial accident compensation insurance may claim the payment of insurance benefits;

A. In an automobile comprehensive liability insurance contract, where the victim of the accident is an employee of the insured who is obligated to compensate for damage under the Labor Standards Act, and is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the provisions of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss suffered by the insured due to the accident, in principle, be compensated for the accident compensation arising from the industrial accident compensation insurance and shall be excluded from the scope of the personal compensation of the automobile insurance aimed at compensating for the damage to a third party. Thus, in case where the insured who is obligated to compensate for damage is the victim, the insurer may receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and the insurer may receive the insurance benefits under the same Act under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. The phrase "business or workplace which ordinarily employs not less than five workers" under Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act, which means not "business or workplace which employs not less than five workers on a regular basis" but "a business or workplace which employs not less than five workers on a regular basis", and it shall be interpreted as "a state". In that case, it shall be interpreted as "a state". Thus, it shall be deemed that there are not less than five workers on a regular basis. In this case, the term "worker" shall be interpreted as including not only a continuous worker in the workplace, but also a daily worker employed for the necessity at that time, and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be interpreted as "a business or workplace which employs not more than five workers on a regular basis", but also shall be interpreted as "a business or workplace which employs not less than five workers on a regular basis," and the above provision shall be interpreted as the same as Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act.

C. According to the provisions of Articles 6 (1) and 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), the business owner is naturally insured of the industrial accident compensation insurance unless the business is operated under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the insurance relationship is established on the date of starting the business. Thus, the business owner can claim insurance benefits under the same Act as a matter of course in the event an employee belonging to the business has suffered occupational accident after the business owner started the business, and the business owner shall not claim insurance benefits only for occupational accidents that have occurred after filing a report on the formation of the insurance relationship under Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act or paying insurance premiums.

A. Articles 659 and 719 of the Commercial Act; Articles 1 and 4 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4846 of Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 6(1) and 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4846 of Dec. 22,

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da23107 delivered on Nov. 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang), 93Da58622 delivered on Mar. 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1190), 94Da4424 delivered on Feb. 10, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1286) B. Supreme Court Decision 87Do153 delivered on Apr. 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 842) (Gong1987, 1390)

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the Korea Automobile Insurance Corporation

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na2924 delivered on July 7, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

1. The purpose of the exemption clause of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case, which the plaintiff concluded with the defendant, is to exclude the loss suffered by the insured from the accident from the accident in principle under the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case, for the purpose of compensating for the loss suffered by the insurer through industrial accident compensation insurance and compensating for the loss to a third party, in case where the victim of the accident is an employee who is liable to compensate for the loss under the Labor Standards Act as an employee of the insured who is liable to compensate for the accident, the exemption clause of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause of this case, which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss caused by the accident, from the scope of the automobile insurance for the purpose of compensating the loss suffered by the third party. Thus, in case where the employee of the insured liable to compensate for the loss is the victim, the insurer may receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act as well as the insurance benefits under the Act to be paid by the insurer under the application of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see, e.

2. However, the term "business or workplace which ordinarily employs not less than five workers" in Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act, which prescribes the scope of the application of the Labor Standards Act, refers not to "business or workplace which ordinarily employs not less than five workers" but to "business or workplace which employs not less than five workers ordinarily." In this case, it shall be interpreted that it means "a business or workplace which employs not less than five workers ordinarily." In that case, it shall be interpreted that there is a situation where the number of workers who are ordinarily employed is less than five, even if the number of workers becomes less than five, it shall be deemed to be more than five. In this case, it shall be interpreted that the worker includes not only workers continuously employed in the workplace but also daily workers employed for the needs at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do153, Apr. 14, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu831, Jul. 21, 1987).

In addition, the proviso of Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) which was in force on January 7, 191 at the time of the accident of this case was excluded from the application of the same Act, taking into account the risk rate, size, place of business, etc. of the business, and accordingly, Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulates "business employing less than five workers" as the business not subject to the above Act, but the above provision should be interpreted as the same as Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the number of workers of the anti-do environmental machinery manufacturer's office operated by the plaintiff was 7 persons in January 1, 1990, 8 persons in February, 8, 5 persons in March, 5, 3 persons in May, 4, 3 persons in June, 4 persons in July, 3 persons in August, 7, 7, 7 persons in September, 7, 11 and 7 monthly average of 5.6 persons in October, and 4 persons in the near the date of the above accident were 3 workers in daily salary, and 3 persons in daily salary, who are 3 workers in daily salary, and the number of workers in daily wage, was 30 days in total and 50 days in daily wage, and that the average daily worker in November 8, 199, who is 5 workers in labor relations, was 50 days in light of the fact that the worker and the worker were 5 days in labor relations.

Upon examining the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below is also justified, which held that the reflective shop of the plaintiff's management constitutes a business which employs not less than five workers at all times, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or legal principles as to the application of the Labor Standards Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence

3. In addition, according to the provisions of Articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act before the above amendment, the owner of the business becomes a policyholder of the industrial accident compensation insurance unless the business under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not the business, and the insurance relationship is established at the commencement of the business. Thus, if any worker who belongs to the business after the business commencement by the business owner, suffers from the occupational accident, he may claim the payment of the insurance benefits under the above Act as a matter of course, and the business owner shall not claim the payment of the insurance benefits only for the occupational accident that occurred after the procedure such as filing a report on the formation of the insurance relation or paying the insurance premium under Article 4

However, the above-mentioned environmental machinery manufacturer's business constitutes a business employing not less than five full time workers as seen above. Thus, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies as a matter of course to the above business (it does not seem that the above business falls under the business under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and on the other hand, the non-party who suffered from the injury due to the operation of the automobile of this case owned by the plaintiff which is the object of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case as a worker of the above anti-do environmental machinery manufacturer of this case is legally determined by the court below, and therefore, the accident of this case constitutes the reason for exemption under the insurance contract of this case.

Although the reasoning of the court below on this point is somewhat insufficient, it is just in its conclusion that the defendant's defense for exemption is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or the legal principles of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no ground

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)