Whether the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, which are cited as the reason for exemption of insurer's liability, apply to the case where the victim cannot receive compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as an employee of the insured liable for compensation (negative)

Under the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, the insurer's exemption is stipulated as the case where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for damages under the Labor Standards Act. The purpose of this provision is to stipulate various employer's liability for compensation for damages caused by occupational accidents in the labor-management relations between the employer and the employee, while setting the industrial accident compensation insurance system under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to secure the liability for compensation, in principle, to receive compensation for damages arising from the labor-management relations through industrial accident compensation insurance. Therefore, even if it is an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, it should be excluded from the application of the above exemption.

Article 659 of the Commercial Code, Articles 1 and 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Han Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na40189 delivered on January 15, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, pursuant to Article 10(2) Subparag. 4 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Comprehensive Insurance Contract concluded with the Plaintiff with the Defendant, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was not obligated to pay insurance money to the Defendant pursuant to the above exemption clause on the ground that the instant damage restoration work performed by the Plaintiff constitutes a business or a workplace that employs not less than five full-time workers, who are subject to the application of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the deceased Nonparty 1, the victim of the instant accident, as the Plaintiff’s employee, is a person eligible to receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act.

2. In light of the records, the court below's decision that the construction work in this case implemented by the plaintiff constitutes a business or a workplace which employs not less than five full-time workers who are subject to the Labor Standards Act is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing.

3. However, Article 10(2)4 of the above General Terms and Conditions of Automobile General Insurance provides for the insurer’s exemption from liability where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation, who is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, for the damages caused by occupational accidents arising from the labor-management relations between the employer and the employee, as well as the industrial accident compensation insurance system is established under the Labor Standards Act governing the labor-management relations in order to secure the liability for compensation, in view of the fact that the industrial accident compensation insurance system is established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in principle, to receive the accident compensation arising from the labor-management relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Meu2917, Nov. 14, 1989). Thus, even if it is an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act,

According to the records, the plaintiff submitted evidence in accordance with the plaintiff's argument that the total construction amount of the flood restoration works of this case implemented by the plaintiff is merely 12,50,000 won and it is not subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see preparatory documents and evidence No. 7 of December 7, 1990). According to Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, construction works of which total construction amount is less than 40 million won are excluded from the business or place of business subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Thus, if the above plaintiff's principal office is recognized, the construction works of this case are not subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus, it constitutes a case where the plaintiff's principal office is not subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

However, the court below did not make any judgment on the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant committed an unlawful act of evading judgment that affected the judgment. Therefore, this issue is justified.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)