[1] Where a policyholder or the insured recognized and used the injury of a victim, but it cannot be deemed that he/she recognized and used the serious result, such as the death of the victim, whether the damage caused by the death, etc. constitutes "damage caused by the intention of the policyholder or the insured" as stipulated in the automobile insurance exemption clause (negative)

[2] The case holding that the automobile insurance exemption clause does not apply in a case where the victim's loss caused by the death of the victim cannot be deemed as a "damage caused by an accusation" of the victim, in a case where the victim's loss caused by the victim's death in a car cannot be deemed as a "damage caused by an accusation" in the victim's driver, in such a case where the victim's driver was able to leave the car with the driver's seat on the blicks

[1] In a case where the automobile insurance policy provides that "damage caused by the intention of the policyholder or the insured (hereinafter "subscriber, etc.") is not compensated by the insurer, such exemption clause is a principle of strict interpretation. Since there is a qualitative difference in the importance of the damage and there is a big difference in the scope of the liability for damages, it is reasonable to consider that the exemption clause is not applicable to the case where a serious result such as death, etc. goes beyond the ordinarily foreseeable scope, and the policyholder, etc. is treated as an insured accident caused by the policyholder, etc., and the policyholder, etc. actively expresses or expresses the result of the death, etc., even if the above exemption clause is not applied, it cannot be said that there is a high risk of causing artificial accidents, and rather conforms to the social security function of the insurance. In light of the circumstance of the accident caused by the operation of the automobile, etc., the victim, etc., who is the victim, was aware and used as the result of the accident, and thus, it cannot be viewed that it does not correspond to the above exemption clause.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a person driving a car at a sloping sloping and left turn to the left and caused the death of the person, considering the circumstances such as the circumstance of the accident, the road condition at the point where the victim was passed, the driver of the sloping vehicle at the time of the accident, the driver's drinking at the time of the accident, the witness's statement, etc., it shall be deemed that the driver of the sloping vehicle was aware and used to have caused a large amount of injury while falling from the vehicle where the victim was different, but it shall not be deemed that the victim was aware and admitted that it was the victim's death, and therefore, the damage caused by the victim's death cannot be deemed as a "damage caused by a bad faith" of the driver of the sloping vehicle, and thus, the motor vehicle insurance exemption clause does not apply to the accident insurance.

[1] Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da39898 decided Oct. 26, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1840)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Jeon Jong-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Furthermore, Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Hong Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na16542 decided July 2, 2010

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 14 of the instant automobile insurance clause provides that “damage caused by the intent of the policyholder or the insured (hereinafter “subscriber, etc.”) shall not be compensated by the insurer.” Considering that such exemption clause is a principle strictly limited interpretation, since there is a qualitative difference between the injury and the serious injury corresponding to the death or death (hereinafter “the death, etc.”) and that there is a big difference in the scope of liability for damages, it is not thought that the exemption clause should be applied because it is treated as an insured accident caused by the policyholder, etc., even in the event of death beyond the ordinarily foreseeable scope. Unless the policyholder, etc. actively expressed or intended the result of the death, etc., it is the general perception of the policyholder, etc., and even if the policyholder, etc. actively expressed the result of the death, etc., it cannot be said that there is a high risk of causing artificial accidents, and rather conform to the social security function, such exemption clause is not applicable to the accident committed by the policyholder, etc. before and after the accident due to the operation of the automobile, it cannot be seen that it falls under 2080.

2. According to the records, the non-party 1, who entered into an integrated automobile insurance contract with the defendant on December 11, 2008, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a relatively less than 0.13% of the blood alcohol level at the time of the death of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 was driving on the non-party 1, who was under the condition of 0.13% of the blood alcohol level at the time of the death of the non-party 2, and was driving on the front of the Korean-style 101, Gwanak-gu, Seoul. The non-party 1, who was under the circumstance of the non-party 2's accident, tried to get off the non-party 2, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident at the time of the non-party 1's death, and tried to get off the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the non-party 2's death. The non-party 1, who was under the influence of the accident at the time of the 1's.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, in light of the circumstances such as the circumstance of the instant accident, the road condition at the point where the victim was transferred, the drinking condition of Nonparty 1 at the time of the accident, the witness’s statement, etc., it is deemed that Nonparty 1, who driven the instant sea vehicle, was aware and used to have caused a large amount of injury while falling off from the vehicle where Nonparty 2 was different from the deceased Nonparty 2. However, it cannot be deemed that the deceased knew and accepted that the deceased was dead.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the damage caused by the death of the deceased cannot be deemed as damage caused by the intention of the non-party 1, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the exemption clause of the instant automobile insurance does not apply.

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the damage caused by the death of the deceased is damage caused by the non-party 1's intentional act, and thus, the defendant is exempted from the liability. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the above exemption clause or by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)