[1] Whether the "case where a driver has subscribed to the insurance or mutual aid association" subject to the special exception under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents includes the case where a driver has subscribed to the insurance related to the operation of a vehicle

[2] The case holding that in a case where the defendant, while driving a non-insurance vehicle, compensates the victim for the amount of damage in accordance with the "other special terms and conditions on vehicle driving security" which caused an accident by occupational negligence, the insurance in the form of the above special terms and conditions does not constitute an insurance within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

[1] In light of the provisions of Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and its legislative purpose and purport, “the case of being covered by insurance or mutual aid” subject to special cases, such as criminal punishment under Article 4(1) of the same Act includes not only the case where “the vehicle causing the traffic accident,” but also the case where “the driver of the vehicle” has purchased the insurance, etc. related to the operation of the vehicle, etc., but also the case where “the driver of the vehicle, etc., has the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of the traffic accident

[2] In a case where the defendant paid damages to the victim in accordance with the "other special terms and conditions of automobile driving security" where he had purchased a separate vehicle that caused an accident by occupational negligence as an insured vehicle while driving a non-insurance vehicle, the case holding that the insurance in the form of the above special terms and conditions does not constitute an insurance within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which requires the full amount of damages due to the

[1] Articles 1, 4(1), and 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [2] Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 2007No799 Decided February 15, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 268 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) provides that a motor vehicle which caused a traffic accident to a driver who has caused the death by occupational negligence and gross negligence under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of causing damage to Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act shall not be prosecuted for the “case of having subscribed to insurance or mutual aid agreements” as provided by Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. The purpose of the Act is to ensure prompt and reliable compensation for damages caused by traffic accidents by introducing an insurance system related to the operation of a motor vehicle in line with the reality that the driving of a motor vehicle becomes an essential basic element for people’s life through the establishment of a heavy increase in the width of the motor vehicle and the self-driving system of the motor vehicle, and further to provide the victim with an insurance policy or mutual aid association with an insurance policy equivalent to the amount of the insurance policy provided by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, including the full amount of the insurance policy or mutual aid agreement for the victim’s.

However, in relation to the traffic accident of this case where the defendant was negligent in driving a sea-going vehicle in his/her own judgment and caused injuries, such as the cage cage cage at the time when he/she was negligent in driving the sea-going vehicle without permission, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on the ground that the above sea-going vehicle constitutes an insurance policy under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Safety of Motor Vehicles, and the victim was compensated for damages from the insurance company after the traffic accident of this case, and the defendant cannot institute a public prosecution against the defendant on the ground that he/she purchased the insurance policy under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Safety of Motor Vehicles since he/she was negligent in driving the sea-going vehicle.

However, even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the "other automobile driving security clause" which the defendant subscribed to does not guarantee the compensation for damage corresponding to the large liability insurer I, which is the compulsory liability insurance under Article 5 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Even if the above general contract clause which the defendant submitted to the court below is stipulated in the above general contract clause, if the personal liability insurance clause, which is guaranteed by the above special contract clause, is covered by the large liability insurer I, or if the insured vehicle is not subscribed to the large liability insurer I, only the amount which is deducted from the amount which can be paid to the large liability insurer I, shall be paid as the insurance money (not more than 52 pages of the trial record). Thus, this type of insurance cannot be deemed as an insurance contract within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Loss Caused by Traffic Accidents

Nevertheless, the court below held that Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Damages is applicable solely on the ground that the defendant and the victim paid the amount of damages based on the above special contract without examining the detailed details of the compensation for damages guaranteed by the above special contract that the defendant separately purchased. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the "insurance" under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Damages

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)