[1] Criteria for determining whether a person constitutes an employee under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Labor Standards Act

[2] Where the victim of a motor vehicle accident is a person eligible for accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, whether the provision of exemption from liability under the General Terms and Conditions of Motor Vehicle Insurance which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss suffered by the insured due to the accident where the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation as a person eligible for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act (negative)

[3] In a case where two or more motor vehicles subscribed to liability insurance jointly participate in one accident and the insurer compensates the victim according to the insurance contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasor and the amount calculated according to the percentage of fault of the other joint tortfeasor exceeds the liability insurance limit, the scope of the amount of indemnity to be borne by the other joint tortfeasor and his/her insurer upon subrogation of the insurer (=total amount of the liability insurance amount)

[1] Whether an employee is a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Labor Standards Act shall be determined according to whether the employee actually provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of contract. It is not determined according to whether the employee was registered as a director in the corporate register.

[2] The purpose of Article 6 (1) and Article 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss suffered by the insured due to the accident if the victim is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act, shall be excluded from the scope of personal compensation of automobile insurance for the purpose of compensating for the loss suffered by the insured through industrial accident compensation in principle and compensating for the loss to a third party. Thus, if the victim is a person eligible for accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the insurer shall not be liable for compensation to the insured in accordance with the above exemption clause. Meanwhile, according to each provision of Articles 6 (1) and 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), since the owner of the business is naturally an insurance policyholder under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, an insurance relationship shall not be established where the worker actually suffered insurance benefits from the business after its commencement.

[3] According to Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of July 14, 1995), a person who registered a motor vehicle or reported the use of the motor vehicle must subscribe to a liability insurance that shall pay the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree to the victim if he/she dies or is injured by another person due to the operation of the motor vehicle, and the amount of liability insurance that shall be paid to one victim shall be based on the maximum of 15 million won in the case of the deceased. In light of the nature of the above liability insurance, where two or more motor vehicles covered by the liability insurance are jointly involved in a single accident, each insurer shall be liable to pay the full amount of the liability insurance amount to each victim to the extent of the amount of damages suffered by the victim. Thus, if the insurer exceeds the maximum amount of liability insurance amount of damages paid by one of the joint tortfeasors and the insurer shall be the full amount of the liability insurance amount to be paid by the insurer.

[1] Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 659 of the Commercial Act, Article 4 (see current Article 5), Article 6 (1) (see current Article 7 (1)), and Article 7 (see current Article 10) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 5793 of Feb. 5, 199), Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of Jul. 14, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da22591 decided Sep. 8, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2096) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57498 decided Feb. 9, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 623) Supreme Court Decision 200Da27671 decided Jul. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2031) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da4238 decided Mar. 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1596), Supreme Court Decision 95Da39540 decided Nov. 24, 199 (Gong196, 1948) / [200Da32748 decided Apr. 28, 202] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da327484 decided Nov. 24, 2005

National Freight Trucking Federation (Attorney Kim Gyeong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Na3505 delivered on December 13, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Whether a person is a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act or the Labor Standards Act should be determined in accordance with whether the person actually provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da22591, Sept. 8, 200; 2000Da57498, Feb. 9, 2001; 200Da57498, Feb. 9, 200), regardless of whether the person is a worker in a corporate register.

According to the records, while the deceased non-party is registered as a director of the non-party Taedon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Modon"), the facts can be known that the non-party worked as a manager of the inn, private house, or restaurant operated by the Taedon. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the non-party is exempted from the liability to pay the insurance proceeds pursuant to the provisions on the exemption of the terms of the automobile insurance of this case on the ground that he is a director of the Taedon.

However, the purpose of Article 6 (1) and Article 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss suffered by the insured from the accident if the victim of an automobile accident is an employee of the insured who is liable for compensation under the Labor Standards Act shall be excluded from the scope of personal compensation of automobile insurance for the purpose of compensating for the loss suffered by the insured through industrial accident compensation in principle and compensating for the loss to a third party. Thus, if the victim is eligible for accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the insurer shall not be liable for compensation to the insured in accordance with the above exemption clause. Meanwhile, according to each provision of Articles 6 (1) and 5 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), since the owner of the business is an insurance policyholder of the industrial accident compensation insurance, the insurance relationship shall be established as a matter of course from the date of commencing the business.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, so long as the death of the deceased non-party constitutes an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, and the business operated by the public is not included in the workplace under the proviso of Article 4 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 2, 1994), it is naturally recognized that the insured of the industrial accident compensation insurance and the insurance relationship for the above business is established under the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the same Act, and the defendant is naturally exempted from the liability to pay insurance benefits under Article 10 (2) 4 of the Business Automobile Insurance Clause.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the defendant is exempted from the liability to pay insurance proceeds pursuant to Article 2 of the Personal Compensation Act is just in its conclusion, and since the above error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, the plaintiff'

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of July 14, 1995), a person who registered a motor vehicle or reported the use of the motor vehicle must subscribe to a liability insurance that shall pay the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree to the victim if he/she dies or is injured by another person due to the operation of the motor vehicle, and the amount of liability insurance that shall be paid to one victim shall be based on the maximum of KRW 15 million in the case of the deceased. In light of the nature of the above liability insurance, where two or more motor vehicles covered by the liability insurance jointly participate in one accident, each insurer shall be liable to pay the total amount of each insurer's liability insurance to the victim to the extent of the amount of damages suffered by the victim (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da38132 of April 18, 202), and where the insurer claims the insurer to reimburse the amount exceeding the maximum amount of damages at the time of the accident and the liability insurance.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant, who is the insurer of the Taeddong, is liable to pay 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff, who is the mutual aid business operator of the joint tortfeasor of this case, after the accident of this case, after deducting 5,00,000 won which the defendant already paid as part of the liability insurance, from the total amount of 15,00,000 won, which is the maximum amount of the liability insurance money of the joint tortfeasor of this case. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relation of recourse or liability insurance

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

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)