[Plaintiff, Appellee] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., Litigation Representative Attorney Jeong Woong-tae
[Defendant, Appellant] Jeju-do, Litigation Representative Attorney Moon Seong-yun
[Judgment Below] Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na3495 rendered on December 15, 1992
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant's litigation representative.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence cited, the following facts: that Non-party 1, the principal of ○○ ○○ School, a special school under Article 144 of the Education Act (교육법) established by the Defendant, was riding in the insured vehicle involved in this case, which was being driven by Non-party 2, a technical civil servant employed at the said school, in order to inspect the camp training facility attached to the said school on the date of the accident in question, and suffered injury as a result of the accident; and that under Article 10(2)(4) of the general terms and conditions of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract entered into between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, it is provided that the insurer shall not be liable for compensation where an employee of the insured who bears liability for compensation dies or is injured, if such employee is a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법). Based on these findings, the court below determined that, even though Non-party 1 was a teacher under the Education Officials Act (교육공무원법), he was, in essence, a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act who provides labor for the purpose of earning wages, and that since the Labor Standards Act, pursuant to Article 11 thereof, applies to the State and local governments as well, Non-party 1, as an employee of the Defendant who was the insured under this comprehensive automobile insurance policy, had the right to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the damage suffered from the accident, which constituted an occupational injury; therefore, the insured accident in question fell under the exemption clause set forth in Article 10(2)(4) of the above terms and conditions, and accordingly the Defendant could not claim payment of bodily injury liability insurance proceeds from the Plaintiff with respect to the damage suffered by Non-party 1 as a result of the accident.
2. However, the purpose of Article 10(2)(4) of the above comprehensive automobile insurance terms and conditions, which provides as an exemption ground for the insurer the case where the victim is an employee of the insured bearing liability for compensation and is a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, is as follows: in light of the fact that, with respect to damage caused by occupational accidents arising in the employment relationship between an employer and an employee, the Labor Standards Act, which governs labor relations, provides for various compensation liabilities of the employer, while the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) establishes an industrial accident compensation insurance system to guarantee such compensation liabilities, the purpose of this provision is, in principle, to have damage arising from occupational accidents in an employment relationship compensated through industrial accident compensation insurance (see this Court's Decision 91Da38297 rendered on August 18, 1992). Therefore, where the victim is not a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, or even if the victim is entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act but is unable to receive compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, such victim must be excluded from the scope of application of the above exemption ground.
Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 1, Article 25, Article 34, Article 42, and Article 65(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법), where a public official as defined in Article 3(1)(1) of that Act suffers an injury due to official duties, such public official is not entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, but is instead entitled to receive benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act. In this case, if, as found by the court below, the above Non-party 1 [referred to in the original text of the reasoning as "Bak Seong-hun"] was the principal of a special school, there is room to view him as a public official as referred to in Article 3(1)(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, and if that is indeed the case, then the above Non-party 1 should be regarded not as a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the damage suffered from the injury caused by the accident in question, but as a person entitled to receive benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act. Accordingly, the insured accident in this case cannot be said to constitute an accident falling under the exemption ground provided in Article 10(2)(4) of the above terms and conditions. Therefore, the court below could not conclude that the above Non-party 1 was a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act without examining whether the above Non-party 1 falls under the category of public official as provided in Article 3(1)(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act (even if the above Non-party 1 were a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, if he were not a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he should be excluded from the scope of application of the above exemption ground; however, the court below made no examination or determination whatsoever on this point).
Accordingly, the court below's determination that Non-party 1, the victim of the traffic accident in this case, was to be regarded as an employee of the insured bearing the obligation of compensation as set forth in Article 10(2)(4) of the above automobile damage compensation general terms and conditions, and as a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and that the insured accident in this case therefore fell under the insurer's exemption ground set forth in the above terms and conditions, constitutes an error of law in that the court below failed to fully examine whether the above Non-party 1 was a public official under Article 3(1)(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, or erred in the interpretation of the above terms and conditions, and it is clear that such error affected the judgment. Therefore, the argument pointing out this error is well-founded.
3. Accordingly, without rendering judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Justice An Woo-man (Presiding Justice), Kim Yong-jun, Cheon Gyeong-song (Justice in Charge), An Yong-deuk