The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the automobile insurance contract does not constitute a self-physical accident under the automobile insurance contract in case where both the contractor and the insured have entered the insured automobile parked and carried on the starting operation and he has died of a fire presumed to have been caused by tobacco non-payment.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the above accident does not constitute an insurance accident under the above insurance clause because it does not constitute an insurance accident under the insurance clause since the insured's possession, use, or management of the insured automobile in accordance with the method of its use, and it is difficult to say that the accident was caused by the insured's possession, use, or management of the insured automobile, and even if the insured was killed, it is hard to say that the accident constitutes an accident under the above insurance clause even if it was used regardless of its nature or risk as a means of transportation or its inherent apparatus, since it is difficult to view it as a means of transportation, since the accident does not constitute an insurance accident under the above insurance clause because it is difficult to view it as the insured's own use of the insured automobile or its inherent apparatus in relation to its nature or risk as a means of transportation of the automobile.

Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

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

Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kang Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and two others (Law Firm Comprehensive Law Office, Attorneys Jeon Young-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na16444, 16451 Delivered on July 18, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s automobile owned by the deceased was insured as of August 1, 199, and the insurance coverage period was 30,000 won from August 1, 199, and it was hard to conclude that the plaintiff's automobile was damaged by the above accident of the deceased's automobile because of its unique purpose of use, and it was hard to conclude that the plaintiff's automobile was damaged by the accident of the deceased's automobile because of the above accident of the deceased's own body, and it was hard to conclude that the plaintiff's automobile was damaged by the accident of the deceased's automobile because of its own accident of the accident of the deceased's automobile, and it was hard to conclude that the plaintiff's automobile was damaged by the accident of the deceased's vehicle's accident of this case's automobile because of its own use and the accident of the deceased's vehicle of this case's automobile of this case's automobile of this case's automobile of this case's automobile of this time. The plaintiff's automobile of this case's automobile of this case's own.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant-Counterclaim who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)