1. The proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “the proviso of this case”) (hereinafter “the Automobile Accident Compensation Act”) provides that the amount of damage suffered by the victim shall be paid as liability insurance money within the scope of the amount prescribed in [Attachment 1] Article 15(1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, where the amount of damage suffered by the victim falls short of the amount of medical expenses calculated in accordance with the standard of medical fees under automobile accident insurance under Article 15(1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Automobile Accident Compensation Act”), the corresponding amount of medical expenses shall be paid as liability insurance money within the scope of the amount determined in [Attachment 1], victim M (3-2), victim N (3-3), victim P (10), victim P (10) and victim Q (10-1) (hereinafter “the victims of this case”). The purport of the proviso of this case is that even if the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the percentage of negligence in the damage suffered by the victim of the traffic accident, the relevant medical expenses can be interpreted as liability insurance money.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da57651 Decided November 26, 2009). In addition, in the event that an insurer concludes an insurance contract containing a special clause for the injury of a motor vehicle with a victim of a traffic accident as the insured and the insurer pays the insurance money to the insured, the insurer who has paid the insurance money to the insured to the effect that it acquires the right of the insured to the third party within the insurance money, pursuant to the said special clause for the injury of a motor vehicle, the victim paid the insurance money to the insured to the