In a case where the issue is whether the “insured” under the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance is limited to the registered insured as stipulated in the self-paid clause stating that “if an insurance company pays insurance money due to an accident during a drunk driving or unlicensed driving, the insured shall bear an amount prescribed in the terms and conditions as his/her own charges,” the case reversing the judgment below which held otherwise on the ground that the “insured” as stipulated in the above terms and conditions is not limited

In a case where the issue is whether the insured is limited to the registered insured under the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract, which provides that "if an insurance company pays insurance money due to an accident during a drunk driving or non-licensed driving, the insured shall bear an amount of money prescribed in the terms and conditions as his/her own contributions," the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of Article 29 (1) of the Act and the provision of self-payment of the above terms and conditions and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, barring any special circumstance, in light of the following circumstances: "the insured" under the above terms and conditions should be deemed to be the same meaning as "the person legally liable for damage" under Article 29 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter "Act"), and it does not include not only the registered insured but also the relatives insured who have obtained his/her consent to use.

Article 29 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Korea Commercial Insurance Co., Ltd.

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 201Na16244 decided September 4, 2012

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

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court terminates the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the relevant statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount case, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. Therefore, in the case where there is such special circumstance, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court is made," which can be deemed as the ground of appeal for the small amount case, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be the ground of appeal for the unification of the interpretation of the substantive law

2. Article 29(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “In cases where an insurance company, etc. provides insurance proceeds, etc. to a victim as the death, injury, or property of another person is destroyed or damaged by reason prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a violation of the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the insurance company, etc. may claim for the amount prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs from the person liable for legal liability.” In light of the effect of the prevention of drunk driving, etc., the insurance company, etc. has introduced a self-paid system that allows the person liable for legal liability to recover a certain amount of money in cases of a certain traffic accident, such as drunk driving, etc. Accordingly, the insurance company, etc. has a duty to pay a certain amount of accident charges where the insured becomes liable for the payment of insurance proceeds due to an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol or unlicensed driving, and the insurance company has paid the victim

However, in the interpretation of Article 29(1) of the Act or the provision on self-charges related to drinking driving or non-licensed driving of an insurance company, there is no Supreme Court precedent as to whether the legal liability of the insured as the insured is limited to the registered insured, and there is a situation in which the lower court's judgment is different. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the lower court's interpretation and application of this case's judgment ex officio shall be determined.

3. Where the meaning of a standardized contract is not clear or doubtful in light of the language and purport of the standardized contract, it may be limited or interpreted in accordance with the supplementary interpretation standards and the principle of unclear fees. However, in a case where the meaning of a standardized contract is clearly expressed in a case where there is no room for multiple interpretation as the meaning of a standardized contract is clearly expressed, it may not be limited or interpreted in the above way.

In light of the above legal principles and the legislative purport of Article 29(1) of the Act, the insured under the "self-charges related to driving or driving without a license" in the terms and conditions of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below shall not be construed as limited to the registered insured for the following reasons.

As seen earlier, Article 29(1) of the Act provides that where an insurance company, etc. pays insurance money to a victim due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving, etc., the person who is legally liable for damage shall be entitled to claim self-payment from the “person who is legally liable for damage.” In this case, where an insurance company pays insurance money to a victim due to an accident during drunk driving or unlicensed driving, the insured shall bear the prescribed amount of self-payment, and the purport of the provision is substantially the same. Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the “insured” of the standardized contract of this case shall be deemed as the same meaning as the “person who is legally liable for damage” of Article 29(1) of the Act. Meanwhile, the insurance company shall pay insurance money not only to the “insured insured” as stipulated in the insurance policy, but also to the “divated driving, etc. of relatives, etc. who obtained the consent of the insured” of Article 29(1) of the Act. Therefore, the “person legally liable for damage” includes not only relatives of the insured but also relatives of the insured, etc.

In addition, the terms and conditions of this case provide that "the insured shall be entitled to claim compensation to an insurance company," and provide that all of the so-called relative insured, acceptance insured, employment insured, and driver insured shall be included in the scope of the insured specified in the insurance policy, as well as all of the so-called "registered insured," and also have a separate provision stipulating that "registered insured," in the terms and conditions of this case, is particularly referred to only "registered insured," among the insured. However, the self-payment clause of the terms and conditions of this case only provides that "insured," but does not limit it to a registered insured.

In addition, "(B) where an insured motor vehicle driver suffers loss due to an accident that occurs when the driver of the insured motor vehicle under the explicit or implied approval of the insured" in the terms of the contract of this case "if the insured motor vehicle driver has driven an insured motor vehicle due to drinking or unlicensed driving, etc. and the insurance company has paid the insurance money due to an accident due to drinking driving, etc., the driver's drinking driving, etc. has been done under the explicit or implied approval of the other insured and thus the other insured is legally liable for damages against the victim, the other insured is also obligated to pay the accident charges together with the driver in accordance with the principle of self-responsibility. This is nothing more detailed than Article 29(1) of the Act (However, if the insurance company does not take responsibility for paying the insurance money, such as the insured motor vehicle driver's driving, etc. for the purpose not for the insured person, the insured also shall not be held liable for

Ultimately, if an insured person who is not an insured person is liable for damages due to an accident of an insured motor vehicle, he/she shall be liable for his/her own share in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of this case if there are several insured persons who are responsible for such liability.

4. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case by interpreting that the insured under the self-paid clause of the standard contract of this case is limited to the registered insured solely based on the circumstances indicated in its holding. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending Article 29(1) of the Act and the interpretation of the self-paid clause of the standard contract of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

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 Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)