Hyundai L&C Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Inn&W, Attorneys Ansan-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Ho-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 10, 2013

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Ra106201 Decided November 30, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

In relation to the accident described in the separate sheet 1, it is confirmed that there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money under the automobile insurance contract listed in the separate sheet 2.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract in attached Form 2 with Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the (vehicle number omitted) vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). Nonparty 3 is Nonparty 2’s spouse, and the deceased Nonparty 4 (hereinafter “the deceased”) is Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3.

B. On June 16, 2012, Nonparty 3: (a) driven the instant vehicle that was parked in the front of the center for senior citizens at Sejong-dong (hereinafter omitted); (b) was shocked by Nonparty 3, who was waiting to board the instant vehicle at the front of the center for senior citizens, and accordingly, died (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Defendant 1 is the deceased’s spouse, and Defendant 2 is the deceased’s child between Defendant 1 and the deceased.

D. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendants pursuant to the instant insurance contract. The Defendants asserted that the deceased’s death caused by the instant accident constituted “self-physical accident” under the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, and the Plaintiff refused to pay the insurance money.

E. Meanwhile, among the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, the contents pertaining to one’s own physical accident are as follows.

(1) The scope of the insured is as follows: (1) The insured shall use the insured's life and body accident (11) and (2) the insured's spouse's life and body loss at the time of the insured's death or death (2) the insured's life and body accident shall be compensated for the damages caused by the insured's accident. (3) The insured's life and body loss shall be limited to the amount of death insurance as stated in the insurance policy. (1) The scope of the insured's life and body loss (1) the insured's life and body loss shall be limited to (2) the insured's parents, spouse, and children (3) the insured's life and body loss (1) the insured's life and body loss (2) the insured's life and body loss shall not be included in the insured's life and body accident (2) the insured's life and body loss shall not be included in the insured's life and body compensation insurance policy if the insured's life and body loss may be caused by the insured's injury (2) the insured's life and body's life and accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant accident does not constitute a self-physical accident under the instant insurance contract because the Deceased did not occur during the possession, use, or management of the instant vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the Defendants the insurance proceeds of the instant insurance contract.

2) Summary of the defendants' assertion

The instant accident constitutes one’s own physical accident under the instant insurance contract since Nonparty 3, the insured, caused the accident of an insured automobile that occurred during the possession, use, and management of the insured automobile, constitutes “the death of the deceased, who is the insured.” Even if such interpretation is not made, the deceased was faced with the instant accident while waiting in order to board the instant vehicle, which can be seen as an accident that occurred while the deceased, directly owns, uses, or manages the instant vehicle, and thus, it is reasonable to view the instant accident as one’s own physical accident.

B. Determination

1) "When the insured dies or is injured due to an accident of an insured motor vehicle which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle" under the Automobile Insurance Contract means the case where the insured motor vehicle is killed or injured while the insured owns, uses, or manages the insured motor vehicle in accordance with its usage (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da59834, 59841, Feb. 26, 2009, etc.).

In this case, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that both the non-party 3 and the deceased constituted the insured as stipulated in the provisions related to self-physical accidents in the insurance contract of this case, and that the non-party 3 departing from and driving the accident of this case, which is an insured automobile, is used in accordance with the use of the insured automobile. The deceased died in the vehicle of this case, which is driven by the non-party 3 as above. Ultimately, the accident of this case is that the non-party 3, the insured, owned, used, and managed the vehicle of this case in accordance with the use of the vehicle, and caused the deceased's shock and death (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da68835, Jan. 14, 2010).

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the insured person who directly owned, used, or managed the insured motor vehicle constitutes a self-physical accident only when he dies or dies of the insured motor vehicle accident. However, there is no ground to interpret the self-physical accident under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case limitedly, and on the other hand, the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case provide that "if the insured person is able to receive compensation due to the injury caused by the insured motor vehicle Class II or the non-insured motor vehicle in which the insured person was admitted (it is able to receive compensation for the personal bodily accident)" shall not be deemed the insured motor vehicle. However, there is no exclusion provision regarding the case of receiving compensation for personal injury I. Thus, the plaintiff does not constitute a ground to deny the obligation to pay the insurance proceeds for his own physical accident in relation to the death of the deceased.

2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to pay the insurance money for one’s own physical accident to the Defendants in relation to the instant accident is without merit (the Plaintiff, without indicating a certain amount, simply sought confirmation on the existence of a (self-physical accident) insurance money obligation based on the instant accident, and thus, this court only determines whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay the said insurance money to the Defendants based on the instant accident).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is so unfair, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Young-chul (Presiding Judge)