In a case where multiple insured workers who are liable for damages due to a single insured event exist, whether the exemption clause in the automobile comprehensive insurance clause individually applies to each of the insured workers, and whether the individual application of the exemption clause applies to a case where one of the insured directly claims for the insurer against the share of the other insured (affirmative)

In general terms and conditions of an automobile comprehensive insurance clause, "no compensation shall be made in case an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act dies or is injured due to a personal accident" shall be provided for the insurer's immunity based on the personal relationship and compensation relationship between the insured and the victim who is liable for compensation. Therefore, in determining the application of the above exemption clause in a case where multiple insured workers exist, barring any special circumstance, even though the individual application clause of the above exemption clause does not separately stipulate the individual application clause of the standardized contract, it shall be decided whether the insurer has the personal relationship, which is the requirement for application by each insured person, and such individual application of the exemption clause shall be decided whether or not the insurer has the insurer's immunity in case where the insurance accident occurred due to a joint tort of the multiple insured persons, and then the individual application of the exemption clause shall also apply to a case where the insurer claims compensation against the insurer directly as the exercise of the right to indemnity against the part of the insured, and therefore, the existence or not of the application requirement of the exemption clause shall not be determined based on the insurer's indemnity claim as to the part of the insured.

Articles 105 and 760 of the Civil Act, Articles 659 and 726-2 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da4305 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1855 delivered on April 23, 1998) 97Da19403 delivered on April 23, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1349)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Co-Defendant 3 of the lower judgment (Attorney Cho Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na24685 delivered on October 23, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court of first instance

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the plaintiff was liable for accident compensation insurance between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, on May 20, 1994 for damages caused by the non-party 3's occupational accident which occurred between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the new accident indemnity insurance.

2. Determination

In general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, "no compensation shall be made if an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act dies or is injured due to an accident" shall be provided for the insurer's exemption on the basis of personal relations and compensation relations between the insured who is liable for compensation and the victim. Therefore, in determining the application of the above exemption clause in cases where multiple insured workers are liable for one insurance accident, barring any special circumstance, the insurer shall decide whether to grant the insurer's exemption by considering the existence of personal relations, which is the requirement of application of the above exemption clause for each insured person, even though the individual exemption clause does not separately provide for the above exemption clause, unless there are any special circumstances. (See, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu276, Jun. 14, 198; 97Da19403, Apr. 23, 198). Such legal principles of application of the exemption clause shall not be applied to the insurer who directly claims the insurer's exemption from liability based on the insurer's indemnity claim against Gap (the insured who is liable for the insurer's exemption from liability.

In the case of this case, if the facts were confirmed in the first instance court, the victim non-party 3 is in a personal relationship under Article 10 (2) 4 of the above Terms and Conditions, but there is no such personal relationship between the non-party 3 and the non-party 3, who is the non-party 4, and thus, there is no reason to exempt the defendant from the liability under Article 10 (2) 4 of the above Terms and Conditions. Thus, the defendant's assertion of the application of the above exemption provision due to personal relationship between the non-party 3 and the non-party 3, which exists between the non-party 3 and the non-party 3, cannot be permitted since it violates the principle of individual

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant seeking the payment of indemnity on the portion of the liability for the new period for the defendant on the ground of the exemption clause due to the personal relations between the non-party 3 and the Han Young-dong case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to individual application of the exemption clause, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)