The case holding that the concept of child under the terms and conditions is not included in the registered insured and the children in the name of the person insured and the person who are in the guidanceal mother and child relationship, in case where the terms and conditions of personal indemnity insurance provide that "the registered insured or their parents, spouse and children are dead or injured."

The case holding that, in case where the provision of the General Automobile Liability Insurance Clause provides that "no compensation shall be made in the event that the insured or his parents, spouse and children are dead or injured," the concept of children under the above provision of the General Automobile Liability Insurance Clause is not included in the concept of children under the above provision.

Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act; Articles 105, 767, and 769 of the Civil Act; Article 4 of the Addenda ( January 13, 1990); Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 19, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 74,120,523 won, 1,564,343 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from June 11, 2003 to February 2, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are five-minutes, and their two are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 123,591,096 won, 6,419,124 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from June 11, 2003 to the pronouncement date of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around June 11, 2003: (a) around 13:35, Nonparty 1: (b) discovered that Nonparty 1 was opened while driving a point of approximately 100 meters away from the signal line at the YY-si, Y-si, Y-si in order to get off Plaintiff 71:5976 on the pressle 71:5976, which is owned by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and (c) caused the collision of the utility poles installed at the front part of the instant passenger car with the steering gear to avoid the collision (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and (d) Plaintiff 1 suffered injury, such as mination of the executive members at the front part of the instant passenger car, mination of the upper part of the pelle, pelvis-gu, pelvis-gu, pelvis-gu, and 1,000 on the right side of the pelk-si.

B. Nonparty 2 is a mother who is the father of Plaintiff 1, and is legally married with the Plaintiff 2, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 2 by using the instant Maritime Vehicle as an insured vehicle (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). Nonparty 1 is the Plaintiff 1’s father and is the Plaintiff’s consent insured.

C. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the insurer of the insured vehicle of this case.

D. As to this, the defendant, as the mother of the plaintiff 1, the insured, the non-party 2 stipulated that "I will not compensate for the dead or injured child" under Article 11 (2) 1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, and in light of the fact that the mother actually forms a family community as a member of his family members, the plaintiff 1 must be exempted from liability. The health class, the mother is merely a relative under the current Civil Act, and there is no parent-child relationship or both-child relationship, and even according to the above terms and conditions, "I will am a child born in a legal marital relationship, a child born in a de facto marital relationship, or a child born in a de facto marital relationship, or a woman born in a de facto marital relationship," and in light of the fact that the terms and conditions of the automobile insurance contract of this case, especially in light of the fact that the insurer is exempted from liability, it is difficult to accept the above terms and conditions of the defendant's above exemption from liability.

However, considering the status relationship between Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 1, who is the driver, the purpose of boarding, and the cost of taking account of the accident in this case, imposing all the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs on the Defendant, who is the insurer of Nonparty 1, is contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, which is the basic ideology of the damage compensation system, and thus, the Defendant’s liability to the Plaintiffs shall be limited to the extent of 75%

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap 1-5 evidence; Eul 9-6; Eul 1; Eul 2-1 and 2; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, the calculation of damages shall be as shown in the attached sheet of calculation of damages. The current calculation shall be based on the door-to-door discount method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5 percent per month, and the amount of money less than a month and the period shall be discarded in all.

(a) Occupation and income;

It is based on the unit price of wages according to the daily wage in the report on the survey on the actual status of construction wages issued by the Korea Construction Association.

(b) The ratio of residual disability and labor ability loss;

(1) A reduction in the aggregate due to steel cutting;

From 2-a(Vocational coefficient 6) to 5% of the aggregate of Mabrodroids and B-a(Vocational coefficient 6) to 2.5% of the labor capacity loss rate, taking into account the degree of reduction.

(2) The cost of sports for the left-off part and the part of the booming part of the earth;

Recognition of the loss rate of labor ability by 12% of Mabrid Mabrid Mega Ⅱ( not)-A-2-a (Vocational coefficient 3)

(3) Sponsing the right lower part;

The plaintiff 1's age, occupation, age, gender, marital status, and the father and degree of the reflective disorder shall be recognized as 5% labor disability by taking into account the age, occupation, gender, marital status, and the degree of the reflective disorder.

(4) Ex post facto stress disorder

Plaintiff 1 asserted the loss of labor ability by 28% for 7 years after the award on the premise of the present state of absence of mental therapy, but the absence of mental stress is supported by most symptoms if they receive mental therapy, and the absence of a temporary or permanent disability only in some cases. Therefore, in light of this, Plaintiff 1’s case recognizes the loss of labor ability by 16% in accordance with the Mabrid Table II, brain, spineba (vocational coefficient 5) and VII-B-2a (vocational coefficient 5) for 5 years after the award.

(v)the upper right-side tamper;

Recognition of the loss rate of labor ability of 1-A-3-d (Vocational Coefficient 5) 24% (limited to the market sea for three years from the date of accident) of beerbrid damage paragraph 1-A-3-d (Vocational coefficient 5).

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

It seems that 13,416,00 won and metal removal cost will be required to be 2,00,000 won as anti-dives cost. For the convenience of calculation, it shall be calculated on January 31, 2006 on a turnkey basis. The present value shall be calculated on January 31, 2006.

(d) Opening expenses (Plaintiff 2's spending): It is believed that one person needs to open for 28 days a day.

(e) Wangs treatment costs: 10,252,710 won;

(f) medicine expenses: 348,270 won;

G. Mutual aid: The Defendant’s portion of Plaintiff 1’s liability out of Plaintiff 1’s medical expenses of KRW 39,224,90,00 corresponding to the portion of Plaintiff 1’s liability is the nature of unjust enrichment and thus, mutual aid should be deducted.

H. The consolation money: Plaintiff 1 (15,000,000) and Plaintiff 2 (5,000,000).

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence; Gap evidence; Gap evidence 13; Gap evidence 16; 1-50; 1-8; Gap evidence 18; 1-19; 1-19; Eul evidence 23; 3; the results of each physical commission to the head of Yong-Namnam University Hospital; 1-3; and the results of each physical commission to the head of Youngnam University Hospital; the purpose of the whole pleadings; rule of experience

I. Sub-committee

(1) Plaintiff 1: 91,902,31 won [the actual income = KRW 67,648,942 + the future treatment expenses of KRW 13,652,409 + + KRW 11,881,209 + + KRW 10,252,710 + medicine expenses of KRW 348,270 + 75% + the payment treatment expenses of KRW 9,806,225 + KRW 15,000 + KRW 74,120,523.

(2) Plaintiff 2: Nursing expenses 1,064,343 won (=1,419,124 won x 75% (Contributory negligence) ＋ 500,000 won = 1,564,343 won.

3. Conclusion

Some of the plaintiffs' claims are accepted.

[Attachment] Omission of Calculation of Damages

Judges Cha Gyeong-hwan