[Plaintiff-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hun-Hun, Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Hwang Tae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 8, 2011

Busan District Court Decision 2009Da10719 Decided May 26, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On January 9, 2009, around 02:25, 2009, it is confirmed that there is no liability for the Plaintiff to pay damages (insurance money) to the Defendant with respect to the vehicle accident of the Defendant’s driving (vehicle number omitted) on the road of Shodong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

It is the same as the order (the plaintiff stated that the claim is the obligation of payment of damages, but in fact it is intended to seek the absence of the obligation of payment of insurance money as the insurer).

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “3.3.3. Judgment and the facts of recognition” are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus,

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident in this case is an accident that occurred while operating a motor vehicle in the process of managing the △△△△△△ Headquarters entrusted not the registered insured of the insurance contract in this case, but the defendant's operation of the above motor vehicle cannot be deemed to have driven an insured motor vehicle for the "△△△△△ Call," which is the registered insured, and so, the defendant cannot be the insured of the above insurance contract, and the above motor vehicle cannot be an insured motor vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff is not liable for paying damages (insurance money) in relation to the above accident, and even if the scope of the registered insured of the insurance contract in this case is broad, the "△△△△△△△ Headquarters call, which is the registered insured of the insurance contract in this case, refers to the "△△△△△△△△△" actually means the registered insured of the insurance contract in this case, and the defendant asserts that the defendant

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the insurance contract of this case constitutes an insurance accident because the defendant, a substitute driver registered in the driver statement under the "△△△△△ Call", caused an accident while carrying out ordinary driving on behalf of a substitute driver under his jurisdiction, and as alleged by the plaintiff, the contract of this case does not necessarily apply to the case where the customer requested a substitute driving on the "△△△△△ Call", and the accident of this case constitutes an insurance accident since it occurred while the defendant was acting on behalf of the substitute driver under his jurisdiction upon the request of the substitute driving in normal ways, and thus, the plaintiff is responsible for compensating the defendant for the damage suffered by

3. Determination

The interpretation of a standardized contract shall be interpreted fairly and reasonably in light of the purpose and purpose of the standardized contract in question in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith, but it shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of average customer's understandability without taking into account the intended purpose and intent of the individual contracting parties. Even after such interpretation, in cases where the meaning of the standardized contract is unclear, such as where the standardized contract provision is objectively and objectively interpreted and its respective interpretation is reasonable, it shall be interpreted favorably to customers (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da81633, May 28, 2009, etc.).

The insurance contract of this case is concluded in order to compensate the damages of the substitute driving company to which the substitute driving company belongs in the event that an accident occurred while the substitute driving company was involved. The insurance premium of the above insurance contract is calculated according to the number of the substitute driving engineer stated in the driver's statement. ② The number of the substitute driving engineer directly belongs to the △△△△△△△△△△' among the substitute driving company mentioned in the driver's statement of the above insurance contract is less than 10, and the remaining articles including the defendant belong to the substitute driving company other than the △△△△△△△△△'s cooperative relations with the substitute driving company. It seems that the substitute driving company is ordinarily affiliated to the above assigned service of the substitute driving company. The defendant is not a substitute driving company's cooperative relationship with the assigned service of the substitute driving company. It seems that the substitute driving company is more easily insured and it is difficult for the substitute driving company to use the above assigned service to the designated service company and the designated service company's designated service driver's license of this case.

In other words, in a case where △△△△△△ Police is a cooperative company, which is a substitute driving company, and is unrelated to the call, which is another call driving company, and where the defendant is a substitute driving company, under the insurance contract, for the reason that the "○○ driving company," which is a substitute driving company, has a cooperative relationship with the drone, it is hard to view that ○○ driving company, which is a substitute driving company, is responsible for the insurance company's expansion of its business area by establishing a cooperative relationship with another call driving company, even if it seems that ○○ driving company is not a substitute driving company's insurance company's own business area, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to bear some of the liability of the substitute driving company's insurance contracts based on the fact that the substitute driving company, which is a substitute driving company, is not a substitute driving company's insurance company's insurance company's own business area, and it is difficult for the defendant to bear some of the liability of the substitute driving company's insurance company's insurance contracts based on the legal relation with the substitute driving company's own business.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to be a driver of an insured motor vehicle for the named insured among the special terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is not liable for compensating the defendant for the damage caused by the accident of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff does not have the obligation to pay damages (insurance money) for the vehicle traffic accident of the defendant's (vehicle number omitted) on the road of Shodong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City on January 9, 2009, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation shall be accepted on the ground that it is reasonable, and the judgment of the first instance court which has different conclusions is unfair, and thus the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be revoked and accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Justice)

(1) According to the above part of the above △△△△△△ Charter, the reason is that a substitute driver belonging to a substitute driving company, other than the "△△△△△△ Charter" recorded in the driver statement of the insurance contract of this case, becomes unable to become the insured of the above insurance contract in any case. In other words, the "△△△△△△ Charter" does not have an independent call number and the customer cannot request a substitute driving to the "△△△△△△△△ Charter", so there is no difference in the case where the "△△△△ Charter" is requested to act as an agent. In addition, even if the customer requests the substitute driving of the "△△△△△ Bureau", if the substitute driving company, other than the "△△△△△ Charter", was represented by the substitute driving company, the call operating expenses, etc. belong to the substitute driving company of this case, and it does not belong to the "△△△△△△△△△△△△", and it cannot be viewed that the above substitute driving engineer's insurance contract of this case was not applied to the above 000th insurance contract.