208Gahap 21030 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligations

Bright Insurance Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Dongi, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Chungcheong-hee, and Kim Jong-il

A (80 years old, South)

Attorney Jeong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant

March 25, 2009

April 1, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In relation to the accident described in the attached Table 1, it is confirmed that there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money to the defendant based on the insurance contract listed in the attached Table 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Conclusion of the instant insurance contract

On June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a personal automobile insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”) containing a special agreement for injury compensation by an non-insurance motor vehicle as shown in the attached Table 2 with Nonparty B, and B paid the first insurance premium around that time.

B. The instant insurance terms and conditions relate to the non-insured motor vehicle coverage agreement among the instant insurance terms and conditions are as follows.

1. Details of compensation;

(1) In a case where there is a person liable to compensate for any damage incurred by the insured when the insured dies or dies of an accident caused by an uninsurance motor vehicle, the insurance company shall compensate for the damage as prescribed by this Clause. 2. The scope of the insured

(1) The scope of the insured is as follows. ① The insured may claim for compensation to the insurer. ① The spouse of the named insured and the named insured (whether or not the insured was on board the vehicle) ② The parents and children of the named insured or their spouse (whether or not the insured was on board the vehicle)

C. Nonparty C, who is a non-licensed driver of an insurance accident, is driving a vehicle owned by Nonparty D, 0000, the Defendant was injured by the Defendant on the wind that the said vehicle is recovered from the road located in Jinju-si on October 4, 2008 (hereinafter “the instant accident”). (No dispute exists between the parties as to the fact that the said vehicle constitutes an non-insurance vehicle under the insurance contract of this case)

(d) Relationship between the Parties

The defendant was born between the non-party E and the non-party F, who was a legally married couple, and the defendant was divorced from F on May 19, 1984, and the defendant was living together with B from 1997, while living together with B.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 7; Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers); witness G testimony; the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to the insurance clause of this case, in the case of a non-life insurance special contract, the insured or the parents and children of the insured or their spouses, other than the named insured and the named insured's spouse. However, in the definition of the insurance clause of this case, only the parents, spouses, and children of the insured are stipulated in the definition of the insurance clause, and the insured's children are children and children born in a legal marital relationship, and they are children, adopted children

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the registered insured or the parents and children of the deceased’s spouse as prescribed by the above provisions shall be deemed to mean the parents of the registered insured, their spouse’s parents and children born in a de facto marital relationship with the registered insured, children born in a de facto marital relationship, and children born in a de facto marital relationship, and they shall not include the children of

(3) However, as long as the Defendant is not a child born in a de facto marital relationship between B and a registered insured person, as well as a child born in a de facto marital relationship between B, it cannot be deemed an insured person of the instant insurance contract as long as it is not a child born in a de facto marital relationship between B and the registered insured person, it does not constitute the insured person of the instant insurance contract

B. Determination

(1) On the other hand, according to the above evidence, in the case of a non-life insurance contract under the insurance contract of this case, the term "registered insured or the parents and children of the insured or their spouses" are included in the scope of the insured. However, according to the insurance contract of this case, in the case of a non-life insurance contract of this case, the term "insured" means the insured (i.e. a registered insured) as stipulated in the insurance policy of this case, and the parents, spouses and children of the above insured as the insured, and the term used in the above provision is defined as the insured. The spouse of the insured refers to the parents of the insured and the adoptive parents of the insured. The spouse of the insured refers to the spouse of a legal spouse or a de facto marital relationship, and the children of the insured refers to the children, children born in a de facto marital relationship, children born in a de facto marital relationship (Article 17-5).

(2) According to the above facts, in the insurance contract of this case, the insured shall be named as the insured in the case of an accident compensation special agreement for one's own physical accident, unlike the provisions of the insured's parents, spouses, and their children. In light of the purport of the above provision, it is reasonable to view that not only the registered insured and their spouses but also the registered insured and their respective children are included in the insured and their respective spouses.

In addition, as seen above, in the insurance contract of this case, the spouse is defined as a spouse under the law or a spouse in a de facto marital relationship (the provision of this case is defined as above in relation to the provision setting the scope of the insured in the insurance contract of this case, but the provision of this definition also applies to the provisions on the scope of the insured in the special agreement for compensation for injury by non-life insurance as stipulated immediately after the special agreement for compensation for one's own physical accident, and also applies to the provisions on the scope of the insured in the special agreement for compensation for injury by non-life insurance as stipulated below). According to the above facts of recognition, E is a spouse in a de facto marital relationship with B, who is an insured worker, and therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, E is deemed to be a spouse in a de facto marital relationship with B, the defendant is the insured

(3) In light of the fact that the term "the insured's parents, spouses, and children" in the term of "the insurance contract of this case" is defined only for the insured's non-life compensation special agreement of this case, the term of "the insured" in the term of "the insurance contract of this case" is also asserted to the effect that the insured should be limited, but the term of "the spouse, parents, children, etc." in the term of "the insurance contract of this case" is defined based on the insured in the special agreement of self-accident compensation as the first relation to the provision of the above provision as the relationship used first in which the scope of the insured in the special agreement of the insurance contract of this case is defined. In addition, the term of "the terms of the insurance contract of this case" generally consists of the term of "the whole terms" in combination with the main clause of "the meaning is clearly unclear," but it is not possible to arbitrarily limit the meaning of the term or to limit it inconsistent with the main clause (Supreme Court Decision 89Meu8290 delivered on May 25, 1990).

(4) Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the defendant does not constitute the insured under a special contract for injury compensation by an insured automobile is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Lee Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-sik