[1] The scope of "legal liability for damages" caused by an accident of an insured automobile in the event that the insured prescribed in the General Automobile Insurance Clause as an insured accident "in the event that the insured has killed or injured any third person due to an accident of an insured automobile occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured automobile, or where the insured has removed or damaged any third person's property,"

[2] In a case where a person who was engaged in loading and unloading on an insured motor vehicle parked on the side of the road according to the direction of the insured was involved in a traffic accident, the case holding that the above accident not only falls under an accident during the operation of the motor vehicle, but also constitutes an accident that occurred due to the insured's reasons attributable to the ownership, use and management of the insured

[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, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da22740 delivered on June 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2117) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da14000 delivered on May 14, 2004

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Ba-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Mono, Attorneys Kim Jung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2007Na15026 Decided July 15, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant 2's insurance contract of this case as follows: the non-party 1, the insured of the plaintiff, continued to drive the above passenger car, which is an insured automobile, and proceeded with the first line on the road without looking at the front side and right side; the non-party 2's failure to accurately operate the steering gear on the road; the non-party 2's back portion of the cargo parked on the right side at the time, caused an accident that caused the non-party 3, who loaded the cargo loaded on the cargo under the order of the non-party 2, and caused serious injury to the non-party 3; the non-party 2 entered into a comprehensive insurance contract of this case as to the above cargo on the premise that the insurance accident applicable to the insurance contract, regardless of its purpose of use, use, or management, should not be regarded as the "the non-party 2's insurance accident" of this case's "the non-party 3 and the non-party 2's damages to the above insurance contract of this case."

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in the following respect.

The defendant's insurance accident stipulated in the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance clause, "the insured's death or injury is caused by the accident of the insured motor vehicle which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle, or by the legal liability for damages when the insured property is removed or damaged." Unlike the motor vehicle accident compensation liability insurance (one), it is not limited to the cases where the insured bears the liability of the owner of the motor vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act during the ownership, use, and management of the insured motor vehicle, but it includes cases where the insured bears general tort liability, employer liability, etc. under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da22740, Jun. 10, 1997; 2004Da14000, May 14, 2004).

Therefore, the court below erred in interpreting the meaning of the operation in accordance with Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in order to fall under the insurance accidents stipulated in the instant comprehensive automobile insurance clause, thereby limiting the insurance accidents stipulated in the instant comprehensive automobile insurance clause to the liability of the owner of the automobile under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the non-party 2 stopped the cargo vehicle on the side, which is a very close and dangerous place to the road, and the accident of this case occurred while allowing the non-party 3 to load and unload the cargo on the above cargo, and the non-party 3 suffered bodily injury, it can be viewed as an accident during the operation of the motor vehicle, which occurred as a cause of neglecting the duty to observe when stopping in the use and management of the motor vehicle, and at least it is reasonable to view it as an accident which occurred due to the non-party 2's responsibility during the ownership, use, and management of the insured motor vehicle, which constitutes an accident under the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance.

Nevertheless, for reasons indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant accident does not constitute an insurance accident stipulated in the said insurance clause, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the meaning of operation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which applies to the instant insurance contract, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)