구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the part from the first half to the first half of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In a case where there is a third party who is at the same time liable for tort or nonperformance of obligation with respect to an accident covered by an accident covered by an accident covered by an indemnity insurance contract, and the insured claims damages against the third party, the insurance money received by the insurer pursuant to the accident insurance contract has the nature of the insurance premium paid by the insurer to the insurer up to the time in preparation for the occurrence of the accident, and thus, it is separate from the liability for damages by a third party.
Therefore, the above insured may claim against a third party for the performance of his/her liability for damages remaining without compensating for the insurance proceeds received from the insurer (However, the liability within the limited scope by negligence offsetting, etc.). If the total amount of damages remains more than the amount of the third party's liability for damages, the third party may claim for the full amount of its liability for damages against the third party. If the remaining amount of damages is less than the amount of the third party's liability for damages, the third party may claim for the full amount of its liability for damages.
In the latter case, the insurer may, by subrogation, claim against the third party the amount equivalent to the difference between the third party's liability and the remaining amount of damage.
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da46211 Decided January 22, 2015). According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the amount of damages caused by the instant fire is recognized as having been the cause of 134,183,073, and the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff is the cause of 116,473,652.