[1] In a case where it can be assessed as an insured event even if any other direct cause of the accident exists in addition to the use of an automobile in accordance with the usage of the automobile, or it is temporarily used for any purpose other than the

[2] In a case where a driver, who is the insured, stops and loads the cargo while loaded the cargo, loses the center of the cargo remaining after loading the cargo, and suffers an injury after leaving the ground floor, the case holding that the use of the motor vehicle as a whole constitutes an insurance accident under the Automobile Insurance Contract, which occurred while the motor vehicle is owned, used, and managed as a cause of an accident, as a whole, while it is owned, used, and managed the motor vehicle

[1] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da904 delivered on August 12, 1980 (Gong1980, 13085) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da89 delivered on September 8, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2087) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71232 Delivered on March 25, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 673)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Hong Hong-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2008Na1528 decided October 17, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The phrase "if the insured has sustained an injury due to an insured motor vehicle accident which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle" refers to the case where the insured motor vehicle under the method of its use is damaged by the insured motor vehicle while being owned, used, or managed (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46375, 46382, Dec. 8, 200). In this case, the term "use of the motor vehicle under the method of its use" refers to the use of various devices installed according to the purpose of its use for each device (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da59595, Aug. 23, 1994). On the other hand, it refers to the case where the insured motor vehicle directly causes an insured motor vehicle other than those under the method of its use, or where it is temporarily used during the intended use under the method of its use under the Act, it shall be deemed that it is evaluated as 800Da984, Feb. 29, 2008.

In light of the facts and records duly established by the court below based on its adopted evidence, it is acknowledged that the defendant set the insurer, the plaintiff, the insured, and the truck of this case as insured motor vehicles, and that the accident of this case was caused by the insured motor vehicle accident that occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle, and that the automobile insurance contract of this case was concluded and is in progress on November 14, 2006 and was temporarily stopped the truck of this case at a high school site located in its holding, and that the plaintiff did not stop the truck of this case at the time and temporarily stopped the truck of this case, and that the plaintiff was injured on the ground that the land which the plaintiff was suffering from while loaded the truck of this case was still on board the truck of this case, it was not proper to determine that the accident of this case was caused by the plaintiff's negligence while temporarily stopping the truck of this case in order to achieve its unique purpose and loaded the cargo of this case in accordance with the law, and thus, it constitutes a violation of the law of automobile insurance contract of this case and its overall use.

2. The contents of a general transaction agreement shall be interpreted objectively and uniformly on the basis of the average customer's understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of individual contract-holders. In a case where the contents of a contract are not clear or doubtful in terms of customer protection, the contents of a contract shall be limited and interpreted favorably to customers and unfavorably to the prepareer of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da12009, Jun. 25, 1996; 2005Da35226, Oct. 28, 2005).

However, the exemption clause of this case provides that "the insured's damage incurred while boarding a place other than a regular passenger vehicle structure" as one of the matters that an insurance company does not compensate for. It is reasonable to interpret the exemption clause in this case to limit "the state of boarding a place where an insurance company is going to move," and unlike this, it cannot be viewed that the loading of cargo is done at a place other than a regular passenger vehicle structure, which is a unique device after stopping a truck and loading of cargo according to its purpose. The judgment of the court below to this purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)