Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm National Law, Attorneys Yellow-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

March 6, 2009

1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiffs pursuant to the letter of decision in lieu of the conciliation of 2003dan7367 dated April 28, 2004 shall not be permitted.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 15:10 on January 22, 2003, Plaintiff 2 operated a national highway of 46 in the official interest of both Gangwon-gu and Yang-gu, Yangwon-gun, Yangwon-gun, both of which are owned by Plaintiff 1, and operated the national highway of 46, which is located in the official interest of both Gangwon-gu, Yangwon-gun, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangcheon-si, both regions. On the opposite side of the course, Plaintiff 2 discovered Nonparty 1, who was in the snow removal work, and tried to see and walk down sand on the road on the road at the direction of the central line, leading to the death of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”).

B. The Defendant, as an insurer, entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty 1, who is the named insured, was paid KRW 154,09,980 in total of KRW 3,89,980 in relation to the instant traffic accident, and KRW 150,20,00 in total of KRW 154,09,980 in the damages insurance amount. The Defendant received KRW 83,89,980 in total of KRW 80,00 in the injury insurance amount and KRW 80,000 in the death insurance amount, which is the liability insurance company of the Plaintiffs.

C. After that, on July 24, 2003, the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming compensation amount of KRW 70,200,000,000, which was paid by the defendant against the plaintiffs on the insurance money of KRW 154,09,99,980, which was paid by Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and deducted the above KRW 83,89,980, which was paid by Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and the above court decided on April 28, 2004 to the effect that the plaintiffs jointly and severally pay KRW 64,00,000 to the defendant. The above decision became final and conclusive on May 18, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the protocol of this case")

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the plaintiffs filed their respective applications for bankruptcy and exemption on the grounds of insolvency on December 15, 2006, and filed their respective applications for exemption on March 2, 2007 with the Seoul Central District Court 2006Hadan41626, and the plaintiff 2 declared bankrupt on May 1, 2007 with the same court 2006Hadan41625, respectively, and on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff 1 was subject to the same court 2006Ma43142, and the plaintiff 2 was subject to the same court 2006Ma43141, respectively, and each of the above immunity became final and conclusive on May 16, 207.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, as the decision of permission for each of the above exemptions against the plaintiffs becomes final and conclusive, it shall have the effect of immunity in principle against the monetary claims on the defendant's protocol of decision of this case (hereinafter "claim of this case") which occurred before the bankruptcy is declared. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the written decision of this case is not allowed.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

In light of the road situation at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident, the Defendant asserted that the instant traffic accident occurred due to the Plaintiffs’ gross negligence, and thus, the validity of the exemption is not recognized as it constitutes the so-called non-exempt claim.

In light of the purport of the exemption system that provides an obligor with an opportunity to reorganize and restore economically by exempting his/her obligation remaining through the exemption procedure, the term "serious negligence", which is the requirement of the non-exempt claim, can be easily predicted if he/she did not pay considerable attention to the extent required to ordinary people, even if it could easily anticipate the result of the infringement on life or body, even though it is difficult to predict the result of the infringement on life or body, it is reasonable to interpret that it means a situation in which the obligor could have easily neglected due care similar to that of the obligor and lack of considerable attention similar to the obligor’s intent.

Based on these points, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the degree of negligence of the plaintiffs who caused the traffic accident in this case was evaluated by the health department, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including various numbers), and the road where the traffic accident in this case occurred was a road without distinction between the delivery of the first line and the lane 5.6 meters wide, and the snow attached to the morning on the day of the accident. The road in this case was a string of the vehicle driving of the plaintiffs. At the time of the accident, Nonparty 1 was placed in the straight line, which formed a little string at the time of the accident, and it was difficult for the plaintiffs 2 to easily accept the fact that the traffic accident in this case was committed on December 30, 202, since it was difficult for the plaintiffs 1 to easily recognize the fact that the traffic accident in this case was caused by the traffic accident in this case, and even if it was caused by the traffic accident in this case, it could not be seen that the plaintiffs' physical ability and defense of safety device at the time of this case were not known.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the executive force of the decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Cho Jin-jin