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 caused by industrial accident in the labor-management relations. 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-chul, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Dok Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na2596 delivered on September 12, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 10 (2) 4 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance provides that the insurer's exemption shall be stipulated as the case where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for damages under the Labor Standards Act, who is entitled to receive the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, as an employee. In light of the fact that the Labor Standards Act regulating the labor-management relations between the employer and the employee provides the employer with various liability for compensation for damages caused by occupational accidents, and that the industrial accident compensation insurance system is established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to guarantee such liability for compensation, in principle, to compensate for damages caused by occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Therefore, even if the accident is an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the above exemption shall be excluded from the application of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see Supreme Court Decision

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff is a person who runs the construction business with the trade name of ○○ Construction and is engaged in the construction business, and the Corporation is contracted for 26,155,000 won with the total contract amounting to 26,15,000 won and employed the victim non-party 1 to work at the above construction site. On the date of the accident, the non-party 1 was a new wall at the above ○○ Construction's office located in Seoyang-dong, where the above ○○ Construction was driven by the non-party 2, who is the driver of the above ○○ Construction, and the accident of this case occurred during the above construction site. At that time, at that time, the above accident is an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, but the above construction work constitutes the total contract amounting to less than 40,000,000 won, and the Corporation is excluded from the accident insurance clause under Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the grounds and inconsistent reasoning, and there is no conflict between the precedents of the party members and the above cited precedents.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)