[1] In a case where the automobile insurance policy provides that the insured shall not compensate for the "damage caused by the insured's intentional act", whether the insured's ability to compensate for the "damage caused by the insured's intentional act" under the above insurance policy should not be hindered (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that where the insured was in a state of mental disability at the time of the accident, the insurer shall not be exempted from liability because the insured's loss caused by the accident does not constitute "damage caused by intention of the insured

[1] Liability insurance is a non-life insurance that covers the legal liability of the insured as an insured accident and the legal liability that is the subject of the insurance accident is tort liability, and therefore, an insurance accident is basically determined in accordance with the legal principles of tort. Thus, in order to constitute "damage caused by the insured's intentional act" under the insurance contract between the parties to the liability insurance contract, unless there are special circumstances in order to divide the insurer into intentional act in the case where the insurer is stipulated not to compensate for the damage caused by the intentional act, barring any special circumstance, it shall be the case where the insured's intentional act was committed in a state where there

[2] The case holding that where the insured was in a state of mental disability at the time of the accident, the insurer shall not be exempted from liability because the insured's loss caused by the accident is not "damage caused by the insured's intentional act

[1] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da16771 delivered on March 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 1157), Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3281), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da67020 delivered on March 9, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 847)

Korea Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Private Taxi Business Association in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na46070 delivered on December 22, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Based on his employment evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) in a case where the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who was the insurer of the Nonparty, are found to have caused the accident of human life on May 28, 1992, to have first compensated the Plaintiff for the damage caused by the accident, but the damage caused by the accident is found to have been caused by the Plaintiff’s intentional damage caused by the insured’s failure to compensate the Plaintiff under the insurance terms and conditions, the Defendant

Furthermore, the court below found that the non-party suffered mental disorder from July 11, 191 before the accident of this case to August 16 of that year, and from January 26, 1992 to May 19 of that year due to mental disorder, etc., which had been hospitalized in the medical treatment and custody center in 1992, and that it was unstable and inappropriate at the time of being admitted to the medical treatment and custody center in 192, such as emotional distress, non-scopic accident, over-copic accident, damage net, damage network, relationship network, judgment, and lack of pathology. Based on that fact, the non-party determined that the non-party caused the accident of this case by intention, but at that time, the non-party did not have any intention to control his responsibility for the result of the act of this case and did not have any intention to commit the accident of this case, and determined that the non-party did not constitute a category of the above insurance contract's ethics.

2. Liability insurance is a non-life insurance that covers the legal liability of the insured as an insurance accident and the legal liability that is the subject of the insurance accident is tort liability, and therefore, an insurance accident is basically determined in accordance with the legal principles of tort (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da16771, Mar. 8, 191). Thus, in order to constitute a "damage caused by the insured's intentional act" under the insurance contract between the parties to a liability insurance contract under the premise that the insurer has a responsibility as a detailed mental capacity unless there are special circumstances to divide the insurer into intentional act in the case where the insurer is stipulated not to compensate for the damage.

In this case where there are no special circumstances in the record, the decision of the court below that the damage caused by the above accident was caused by the acts of the non-party in a state of mental and physical weakness, and thus it does not constitute intentional damage is just in its conclusion. The fact-finding and decision of the court below did not contain any errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of unlawful grounds or exemption clauses, the good faith in insurance contracts

We cannot accept the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)