[1] The purpose and interpretation of the terms and conditions of the official car exemption under the General Insurance Contract for Public Vehicles

[2] Whether the terms and conditions of the official car exemption apply only to an accident that occurred while the victim, such as soldiers, etc. was on board the insured automobile (negative)

[3] Whether the terms and conditions of official car exemption apply only to cases where the injury suffered by the victim, such as a soldier, is related to the performance of duties equivalent to combat and training (negative)

[4] The case holding that where a police officer was involved in a traffic assistance service and passed a traffic accident by an official vehicle, the accident constitutes a case where a police officer was injured on duty in connection with the performance of his/her duties and thus the terms and conditions of the official exemption shall apply

[1] In light of the purport of Article 2(1) proviso of the State Compensation Act that, in cases where a soldier, etc. is unable to claim compensation against the State or a local government because the victim of a soldier, etc. is entitled to receive compensation pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, the State or a local government shall not claim compensation against the insurer as the insured in relation to combat, training, or performance of other duties, the insurer shall be interpreted not to be liable to pay the insurance money if a soldier, civilian employee, police officer, etc. was killed in action, died on duty, died on duty or was injured on duty in relation to combat, training, or was injured on duty while on board the insured automobile.

[2] It shall not be interpreted that the terms and conditions of exemption are applied only when the victim of the soldier, etc. injured due to a traffic accident is on board the insured automobile.

[3] Where the injury suffered by the injured by a soldier, etc. is necessarily related to the performance of duties corresponding to combat and training, an insurance company cannot be deemed exempted from liability according to the terms and conditions of tolerance exemption.

[4] The case holding that a traffic accident constitutes a case where a police official sustained a wound in connection with the performance of police officer's duties and sustained an injury, such as the cutting of two-frames by a bus commuting to the Ministry of National Defense, and the traffic accident constitutes a case where a police officer sustained a wound in connection with the performance of police officer's duties.

[1] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 726-2

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da56859 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2468)

Tran Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation (Attorney Go Chang-deok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na53467 delivered on June 25, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 3 of the Special Terms and Conditions of the Insurance Contract of this case provides that "the company shall not compensate for any soldier, civilian employee, police officer, or member of the homeland reserve forces related to combat, training, or performance of other duties or any insured automobile for the purpose of maintaining national defense or public order." However, the above provisions of the Insurance Contract of this case provide that "if a soldier, civilian employee, or member of the homeland reserve forces has been killed in action, died on duty, or was injured on duty in the course of boarding the insured automobile for the purpose of maintaining national defense or public order, the victim may be entitled to compensation pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus the State or local government cannot claim compensation against the State or local government as the insured, if the victim is unable to claim compensation against the State or local government, it shall not be entitled to claim compensation against the insurer (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da56859 delivered on July 11, 197). In light of the purport of the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, the plaintiff, the insurance company, a soldier, civilian employee, etc. shall not be interpreted.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it does not contain any error like the theory of lawsuit. It shall be interpreted that the above exemption clause applies only when the victim of a soldier, etc. injured due to a traffic accident is on board an insured automobile, or even if it is not so, the purport of the above exemption clause is not clear, so the argument that the above exemption clause should be interpreted in favor of the customer is just an independent opinion. It is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

The court below recognized that the non-party, a police officer belonging to the Yongsan-gu Police Station North Korea Police Station North Korea Police Station, is in charge of traffic assistance duties in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, while building a crosswalk and being injured by a bus belonging to the Ministry of National Defense, etc., and determined that the above traffic accident constitutes the case where a police official was injured in the course of performing his duties in connection with the performance of his duties and thus the above provision of the above provision of the exemption from the tolerance is applicable. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The judgment of the court below is not proper, and there is no error such as the theory of lawsuit. The case cited by the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate to be invoked in this case only where the injury suffered by the victim is related to the performance of duties corresponding to combat and training.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the defendant's assertion that the amount of the insurance premium equivalent to the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff to the above non-party is identical to the amount of the medical expenses to be paid by the defendant to the above non-party and thus, it is deemed that the defendant led to the confession. Thus, the argument that the above medical expenses are not less than the amount of the above insurance premium is revoked, and thus, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal in the final appeal. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)