Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
The insured's intent and the serious result in a motor insurance exclusion
Supreme Court, July 23, 2020, 2018Da276799 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(자)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the insured in a motor insurance contract recognised and accepted the victim's injury but not the victim's death or other serious result, does the loss arising from that serious result fall within 'loss caused by the insured's intent' in the exclusion clause, and how is it decided whether the result was a serious one?
Holding
No. Where the circumstances of the accident show that the insured accepted the victim's injury but did not accept the death or other serious result, the loss flowing from that serious result is not loss caused by the insured's intent as the clause uses the term, and the insurer cannot rely on the exclusion. Whether the result was a serious one is not judged on that result alone; the difference between the result the driver intended and the result that actually occurred, the relationship between the driver and the victim, and the circumstances of the accident before and after it are weighed together.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
자동차 운행으로 인한 사고의 경위와 전후 사정 등에 비추어 피보험자가 피해자의 상해에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였으나, 피해자의 사망 등 중대한 결과에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였다고 볼 수 없는 경우에는, 그 사망 등으로 인한 손해는 위 면책약관에서 정한 ‘피보험자의 고의로 인한 손해’에 해당하지 아니하고, 따라서 위 면책약관이 적용되지 아니하는 것으로 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Where, in view of the course of the accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle and the circumstances before and after the accident, and so forth, the insured recognized and condoned the victim's injury but cannot be regarded as having recognized and condoned serious consequences such as the victim's death, the damage resulting from such death or the like does not correspond to 'damage caused by the insured's intent' as provided in the said exemption clause, and it is therefore reasonable to regard the said exemption clause as not applying.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이때 사망 등과 같은 중대한 결과는 단순히 그 결과만으로 판단할 것은 아니고, 당시 가해 차량 운전자가 의도한 결과와 피해자에게 실제 발생한 결과 간의 차이, 가해 차량 운전자와 피해자의 관계, 사고의 경위와 전후 사정 등을 함께 고려하여 종합적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In this regard, a serious consequence such as death must not be determined simply by the consequence itself, but must be determined comprehensively, taking into account together the difference between the result intended by the driver of the offending vehicle at the time and the result that actually occurred to the victim, the relationship between the driver of the offending vehicle and the victim, the course of the accident and the circumstances before and after the accident, and so forth.
Factors
- 자동차 운행으로 인한 사고의 경위와 전후 사정 등에 비추어 피보험자가 피해자의 상해에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였으나
- 당시 가해 차량 운전자가 의도한 결과와 피해자에게 실제 발생한 결과 간의 차이
- 가해 차량 운전자와 피해자의 관계
- 사고의 경위와 전후 사정
Unofficial English translation
• In view of the course of the accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle and the circumstances before and after the accident, and so forth, where the insured recognized and condoned the victim's injury but
• the difference between the result intended by the driver of the offending vehicle at the time and the result that actually occurred to the victim
• the relationship between the driver of the offending vehicle and the victim
• the course of the accident and the circumstances before and after the accident
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 10. 26. 선고 2006다39898 판결(공2007하, 1840)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Da39898 decided October 26, 2007 (Gong 2007 Ha, 1840)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 10. 26. 선고 2006다39898 판결(공2007하, 1840), 대법원 2010. 11. 11. 선고 2010다62628 판결(공2010하, 2266)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
For acceptance of the serious result itself to be found, how far must the difference between the intended and the actual result, the relationship between the driver and the victim and the circumstances of the accident before and after it weigh together?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court, applying the serious-result assessment to this accident, will show how the weighing works in practice. A later Supreme Court decision treating the difference between the intended and the actual result differently, or an amendment to Article 659(1) of the Commercial Code or Article 105 of the Civil Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “For acceptance of the serious result itself to be found, how far must the difference between the intended and the actual result, the relationship between the driver and the victim and the circumstances of the accident before and after it weigh together?” vs Independent “When would a less severe or nonpermanent injury qualify as a grave outcome beyond the injury the insured foresaw and accepted?”
The primary asks how much weight the listed circumstances must carry to establish acceptance of the serious result, while the independent asks what less severe or nonpermanent injury would count as a grave outcome beyond the foreseen injury. They concern related but different boundaries.
자동차 운행으로 인한 사고의 경위와 전후 사정 등에 비추어 피보험자가 피해자의 상해에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였으나, 피해자의 사망 등 중대한 결과에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였다고 볼 수 없는 경우에는, 그 사망 등으로 인한 손해는 위 면책약관에서 정한 ‘피보험자의 고의로 인한 손해’에 해당하지 아니하고, 따라서 위 면책약관이 적용되지 아니하는 것으로 봄이 타당하다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 14 September 2018 (2017Na48279), held that the loss caused by the accident was loss caused by the non-party driver's intent, so the exclusion clause of the motor insurance contract applied and the defendant insurer was released from liability. The driver, knowing that Plaintiff 1 was still clinging to the vehicle, braked suddenly and threw him from the bonnet onto the road.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, on those facts, the driver may be taken to have recognised and accepted that Plaintiff 1 would be hurt to some degree by falling from the vehicle, but not that he would suffer the permanent disability and the state of severe dependence that followed. Loss from that serious result is not loss caused by the driver's intent, so the exclusion clause did not apply. The judgment below misstated the law on the clause, or found the facts in breach of the rules of evidence, and the Supreme Court reversed it and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court, leaving the remaining grounds of appeal undecided.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the insured, by the same weighing of the intended and the actual result, the relationship and the circumstances, is taken to have accepted the death or other serious result itself.
- Loss falling within the clause because it was caused by the insured's intent, where the distinction between the accepted injury and the unaccepted serious result does not arise.
- A motor insurance contract whose special or general clause words the exclusion differently from 'loss caused by the insured's intent'.
Record verification notes
Set the wording of special clause Article 3 and general clause Article 8(1) of the policy beside the facts, since the Court construed that clause and no other. Then gather what shows the driver's state of mind, here his statements to the prosecution that it was a joke between close colleagues, the 44% permanent loss of earning capacity against the standard for urban day labourers and the need for eight hours of daily care, because the Court weighed the gap between the intended act and the actual result against those facts.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 자동차보험계약의 피보험자가 피해자의 상해에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였으나 피해자의 사망 등 중대한 결과에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였다고 볼 수 없는 경우, 그 사망 등으로 인한 손해가 보험계약의 면책약관에서 정한 ‘피보험자의 고의로 인한 손해’에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 이때 ‘사망 등과 같은 중대한 결과’인지 판단하는 방법 [2] 자동차보험의 피보험자인 갑이 을 등 직장 동료들과의 모임을 마치고 그들을 귀가시켜 주기 위해 가해 차량을 운전하여 우선 을을 그가 사는 아파트 앞 도로에서 내려 주었는데, 을이 가해 차량을 가로막고 ‘술 한잔 더하자’며 보닛 위에 올라타자, 갑이 그를 떼어 놓기 위해 가해 차량을 서서히 움직이다가 급제동하는 바람에 을이 가해 차량에서 떨어지면서 도로 바닥에 머리를 부딪쳐 외상성 경막하출혈 등의 상해를 입었고, 그로 인해 하지부전마비 및 인지기능저하 등으로 노동능력을 일부 상실하는 영구장해와 매일 8시간 개호가 필요한 중증 의존 상태에 처하게 된 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 갑은 을이 위와 같은 중상해를 입게 되리라는 것까지 인식·용인하였다고 볼 수 없으므로, 을의 손해는 갑의 고의에 의한 손해라고 할 수 없어 위 사고에 대하여는 ‘피보험자의 고의에 의한 손해’를 보험자가 보상하지 아니하는 사항으로 정한 자동차보험의 면책약관이 적용되지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] In a motor vehicle insurance contract, where the insured recognized and condoned the victim's injury but cannot be regarded as having recognized and condoned serious consequences such as the victim's death, whether the damage resulting from such death or the like corresponds to 'damage caused by the insured's intent' as provided in the exemption clause of the insurance contract (negative), and the method of determining whether a consequence is a 'serious consequence such as death' in such a case [2] In a case where A, the insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy, finished a gathering with B and other colleagues from work and drove the offending vehicle to take them home, first dropping B off on the road in front of the apartment where B lived; where, when B blocked the offending vehicle and, saying 'let's have one more drink,' climbed onto the hood, A, in order to pull him off, gradually moved the offending vehicle and then braked sharply, as a result of which B fell from the offending vehicle and struck his head on the road surface, suffering injuries such as traumatic subdural hemorrhage, and consequently fell into a state of severe dependency requiring 8 hours of nursing care per day, with permanent disability consisting of partial loss of working capacity due to incomplete paralysis of the lower extremities and cognitive impairment, among others; and where, in view of all the circumstances, A cannot be regarded as having recognized and condoned that B would suffer serious injuries of that kind, and therefore B's damage cannot be regarded as damage caused by A's intent, so the motor vehicle insurance exemption clause stipulating that the insurer shall not indemnify 'damage caused by the insured's intent' does not apply to the said accident
Summary of the holding
[1] 자동차보험의 특별약관 및 보통약관에서 ‘피보험자의 고의로 인한 손해’를 보험자가 보상하지 아니하는 사항으로 규정하고 있지만, 자동차 운행으로 인한 사고의 경위와 전후 사정 등에 비추어 피보험자가 피해자의 상해에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였으나, 피해자의 사망 등 중대한 결과에 대하여는 이를 인식·용인하였다고 볼 수 없는 경우에는, 그 사망 등으로 인한 손해는 위 면책약관에서 정한 ‘피보험자의 고의로 인한 손해’에 해당하지 아니하고, 따라서 위 면책약관이 적용되지 아니하는 것으로 봄이 타당하다. 이때 사망 등과 같은 중대한 결과는 단순히 그 결과만으로 판단할 것은 아니고, 당시 가해 차량 운전자가 의도한 결과와 피해자에게 실제 발생한 결과 간의 차이, 가해 차량 운전자와 피해자의 관계, 사고의 경위와 전후 사정 등을 함께 고려하여 종합적으로 판단하여야 한다. [2] 자동차보험의 피보험자인 갑이 을 등 직장 동료들과의 모임을 마치고 그들을 귀가시켜 주기 위해 가해 차량을 운전하여 우선 을을 그가 사는 아파트 앞 도로에서 내려 주었는데, 을이 가해 차량을 가로막고 ‘술 한잔 더하자’며 보닛 위에 올라타자, 갑이 그를 떼어 놓기 위해 가해 차량을 서서히 움직이다가 급제동하는 바람에 을이 가해 차량에서 떨어지면서 도로 바닥에 머리를 부딪쳐 외상성 경막하출혈 등의 상해를 입었고, 그로 인해 하지부전마비 및 인지기능저하 등으로 노동능력을 일부 상실하는 영구장해와 매일 8시간 개호가 필요한 중증 의존 상태에 처하게 된 사안에서, 가해 차량 운전자가 의도한 결과와 피해자에게 실제 발생한 결과의 차이, 가해 차량 운전자와 피해자의 관계, 사고 경위와 전후 사정 등에 비추어 갑은 을이 영구장해와 중증 의존 상태에 이르는 중상해를 입게 되리라는 것까지 인식하고 용인하였다고 볼 수는 없으므로, 을의 손해는 갑의 고의에 의한 손해라고 할 수 없어 위 사고에 대하여는 ‘피보험자의 고의에 의한 손해’를 보험자가 보상하지 아니하는 사항으로 정한 자동차보험의 면책약관이 적용되지 않는다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제659조 제1항, 민법 제105조 [2] 상법 제659조 제1항, 민법 제105조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger