[Plaintiff, Appellee] Korea Rehabilitation Aid Association (갱생보호회), Litigation Representative: Samphoong Joint Law Office, Attorney Lee Yong-sik and 1 other
[Defendant, Appellant] Kukje Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (국제화재해상보험 주식회사), Litigation Representative: Attorney Hyun Jong-chan
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment 93Na17050, rendered October 21, 1993
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
As to the grounds of appeal:
Article 10, Paragraph 2, Item 4 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Policy (자동차종합보험 보통약관) in this case provides, as a ground exempting the insurer from liability, the case where the victim is an employee of the insured who bears liability for damages and is a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법). The meaning of this provision is as follows: with respect to damages arising from occupational accidents occurring in the employment relationship between an employer and an employee, the Labor Standards Act, which governs labor relations, provides for various compensation obligations of the employer, and, to secure such compensation obligations, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) establishes the industrial accident compensation insurance system. Accordingly, the purpose of the provision is that, in principle, accident compensation arising in the employment relationship should be covered by industrial accident compensation insurance. Therefore, even if an accident constitutes an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, if compensation cannot be obtained therefor under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, such case must be excluded from the scope of application of the above exemption clause (see this Court's Decisions 88Da29177, rendered November 14, 1989; 91Da6634, rendered May 14, 1991).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found as follows: the deceased Nonparty 1, who died in the traffic accident in this case, was an employee affiliated with the Plaintiff's Masan Branch. On the day of the traffic accident, Nonparty 1, along with seven employees including Nonparty 2, the General Affairs Section Chief of the Masan Branch, boarded the vehicle in this case, which was affiliated with the Masan Branch, and was traveling to Miryang-eup to attend a monthly meeting held at the Plaintiff's Miryang Branch, during which the traffic accident occurred and Nonparty 1 died. Therefore, the death of Nonparty 1 constitutes an occupational accident. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's business constitutes a business or workplace to which the Labor Standards Act applies, and thus the deceased is a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act. However, the Plaintiff's rehabilitation aid business falls under health and social welfare business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, and pursuant to Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (동법시행령), it does not constitute a business or workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.
Accordingly, the court below held that, since the deceased cannot receive compensation for his death caused by the traffic accident in this case under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he is excluded from the scope of the exemption clause under Article 10, Paragraph 2, Item 4 of the above Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Standard Terms and Conditions.
The above findings and determination of the court below are consistent with the legal principles set forth above and are justified, and there is no error of law, as argued in the grounds of appeal, in misinterpreting the exemption clause of automobile insurance. The argument is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Presiding Justice Park Jun-seo, Justice Kim Sang-won, Justice Yoon Young-cheol (Presiding Justice for Deliberation), Justice Park Man-ho