The case holding that the insurer shall not be held liable for personal injury because the insured's punishment of the General Motor Vehicle General Insurance Contract for the motor vehicle is lacking in the identity of others as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in case of death of an accident due to the use

The case holding that, in the event that a non-registered insured person and a non-registered insured person who lives together with the non-registered insured person have died of an accident for the purpose of travel with another person, they are not only those who use or manage a motor vehicle, but also those who are directly and specifically responsible for operation of the motor vehicle after obtaining the consent of the registered insured under the general terms and conditions of the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance as one of the insured in the event that there is no liability for compensation, the type of the registered insured person cannot claim damages under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to lack of identity against the registered insured person who is the owner of the motor vehicle

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 719 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

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

Maritime Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na53291 delivered on August 16, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1, who died due to the reproduction of the automobile of this case by the adopted evidence, was the non-party 2's non-party 1, the father at the time of the accident, and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, the plaintiff 1, the father at the time of the accident. The non-party 1, the owner of the automobile of this case, was able to drive the accident of this case alternately from the non-party 2, the owner of the automobile of this accident, and the fact-finding is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence

In addition, since non-party 1 was used jointly with non-party 3 and 4 for the purpose of travel by lending the accident vehicle from the non-party 2 who is the registered insured, the non-party 1 is not only a person who is using or managing the vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under Article 10 (2) 3 and Article 11 (3) of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance (Evidence B No. 1) which stipulates as one of the insured in the event that there is no liability for compensation, but also a person who is under use or management of the vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under Article 10 (2) 3 and Article 11 (3). Thus, the non-party 1 is the owner of the automobile and the non-party 2, who is the registered insured, cannot claim damages under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act due to lack

In the above purport, the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the defendant is not liable for personal injury as an insurer for the damage caused by the death of the deceased non-party 1, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

All appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho