다른 자동차운전 담보특약에서의 다른 자동차의 의미와 범위에 관한 判例硏究 -대법원 2008. 10. 9. 선고 2007다55491 판결-

Abstract

The recent case presents definite standards of interpretation on the implication and extent under the Other Automobile of the Driving Others Automobile Special Clause. The above case is meaningful in two points. First, it presents definite standards of judgement about if a automobile is included in "the Usually Used Automobile" above special clauses. Secondly, the case made it clear the concept of a "Scrapped Car" under "the Replaced Automobile" that it is possible to settle the dispute about the interpretation of the clauses. The warranty principle of Automobile insurance is mainly focused on cars, but the Other Automobile of the Driving Others Automobile Special Clause is focused on drivers, so exceptionally magnifying the extent, But the magnification of warranty principle should be limited. If the range of warranty is magnified indefinitely it can conflict with the warranty principle of Automobile insurance which is focused on cars. If we allow the indefinite magnification of the range of warranty, the insurer should cover the danger of numbers of cars by only one insurance contract. It is irrational. So, the magnification of warranty principle should be allowed only for the settlement of the absurdity of the insurance which is focused on cars. In conclusion, I strongly support above judgement, because the judgement made it clear the implicaion and extent under the Other Automobile of the Driving Others Automobile Special Clause and the judgement can restrain the absurd practice of the courts. Because a fairly long time, the courts magnified irrationally the meaning of the Other Automobile in the name of goodness of the victims and the insured.