대인배상Ⅱ 약관에서 승낙피보험자 사상 면책조항의 효력에 관한 고찰-대법원 2020. 8. 20. 선고 2016다278692 판결을 중심으로-

In case of automobile insurance, the insured car is operated by a number of persons including the owner of automobile, family, employee or friends of the owner. These persons can be the main agent of liability of compensation against a victim. Therefore, the automobile insurance has a relatively wider range of insured in comparison to other kinds of non-life insurance. Meanwhile, in the bodily injury liability insurance Ⅱ of automobile insurance, the insurer is exempted from liability in case one of the following is deceased or injured: the insured(=named insured, relative insured, approved insured, employer of named insured, driver for the above insured) or parents, spouse and children. Originally, under the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law(AACSLaw), a Third Party means the person who claims for compensation of damage in AACSLaw and everyone other than yourself from the perspective of the insured. But although it’s a Third Party by AACSLaw, it is intended to be excluded from the scope of the victim because it is said that a Third Party is sparse due to a certain human identity relationship with the insured or driver. If the victim who is deceased or injured by car accident is the insured, there are many disputes in the court’s ruling and insurance practice over whether the insurer is exempted from liability. The ruling is an issue where the judgment on whether the insurer’s compensation liability is recognized if the approved insured is deceased or injured. The Supreme Court ruled that if the victim is a approved insured, but a Third Party is recognized, the insurer cannot apply the exclusion clause of bodily injury liability insurance Ⅱ. This judgment is a completely different conclusion from the previous Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court is adding confusion to insurance practices by not going through the case change process. However, the exclusion clause of death or injury for the insured’s own should be limited to those of the named insured and the driving insured, as in the Japanese auto insurance policy. In particular, in terms of protecting victims from car accidents, the problem of disputes related to the interpretation of the exclusion clause must be resolved, to this end, amendments to the relevant exclusion clause are needed in the future. I agree with the conclusion of this ruling, but I regret the poor legal composition in the process of reaching the conclusion.