[2] In a case where the insured vehicle of the insurance company A and the mutual aid vehicle of the Association of Trucking Transport Services were involved in a traffic accident between the insured vehicle of the insurance company B and the mutual aid vehicle of the Association of Trucking Transport Services, and Company A claimed reimbursement against the Association of Trucking Transport Services after paying medical expenses to the victim of the traffic accident in accordance with the special terms and conditions for the automobile injury, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending legal principles in holding otherwise, even though the victim acquired the claim for the corresponding amount of medical expenses owed to the Association of Trucking Transport Services under the proviso

The proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that where the amount of damage sustained by the victim falls short of the corresponding amount of medical fees calculated according to the standard of medical fees for automobile accident insurance under Article 15 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the corresponding amount of medical expenses shall be paid as liability insurance money within the scope of the amount prescribed in [Attachment Table 1]. The purport of the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 is to interpret that even in a case where the amount of damage calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence among the damage suffered by the victim of automobile accident falls short of the corresponding amount of medical expenses under the above provision, the corresponding amount of medical expenses shall be deemed as the amount of damage to guarantee medical treatment of the victim of the automobile accident as liability insurance money. Thus, the victim of the automobile accident may claim the corresponding amount of medical expenses under the proviso of subparagraph 2 as liability insurance money under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da82793, Dec. 11, 2009>

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, with respect to each traffic accident occurred between the plaintiff's insured vehicle (hereinafter "the plaintiff's insured vehicle") and the defendant's deducted vehicle, the plaintiff paid medical expenses according to the special terms and conditions for automobile injury to the victim of each traffic accident stated in the "written claim" attached to the judgment below, which is the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle or the passenger, and the fact that the plaintiff's insurance terms and conditions provide that the plaintiff has acquired the right to a third

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, each of the above victims acquired the right to claim the liability mutual-aid amount owed by each of the above victims against the Defendant within the limit of each payment amount, and each of the above victims may claim the amount equivalent to the medical expenses under the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, regardless of whether they contributed to the occurrence of each of the above traffic accidents under the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, or not, as the liability mutual-aid amount. Accordingly, each of the above victims acquired the right to claim the liability mutual-aid amount corresponding to the medical expenses that each of the victims has against

Therefore, the court below should have determined the limit of the liability mutual-aid amount by examining where the degree of injury of each victim as above falls under any of the items of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and after examining whether the amount of damage calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence by each victim exceeds the corresponding amount of medical fees calculated based on the standards of medical fees covered by automobile accident insurance, the court below should have recognized the corresponding amount of medical fees as the liability mutual-aid amount if the amount of damage is less

Nevertheless, the court below rejected all of the plaintiff's claim for compensation of this case against the defendant on the ground that, without making any judgment on the plaintiff's assertion as to the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, where the victim of traffic accident who is the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle or the insurer who subrogated the above victim claims payment of the mutual aid money to the defendant through the lawsuit, even if the mutual aid money calculated by taking account of the negligence of the above victim falls short of the amount corresponding to the medical treatment expenses, the "the medical treatment expenses compensation provision" cannot be applied under the terms and conditions of the defendant's mutual aid that the amount corresponding to the medical treatment expenses should be paid as the mutual aid money, or that the plaintiff did not assert or prove that the amount exceeded his joint exemption as one of the

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation of the proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the effect of subrogation by the insurer, or omitting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)