[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that held that Article 32 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act applies to voluntary insurance money on the ground that Article 32 of the same Act of the same Act, which provides for prohibition of seizure of direct right to claim against the insurer by the victim against the insurer, etc. under Article 9 (1) of the same Act applies only to compulsory insurance money

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that held that Article 32 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act applies to voluntary insurance money on the ground that Article 32 of the same Act of the same Act, which provides for prohibition of seizure of direct claim against the victim's insurer, etc. under Article 9 (1) of the same Act applies only to compulsory insurance money

As to the application for provisional seizure of claims filed by the victim of traffic accident with the claim for return of litigation costs against the victim of traffic accident as the preserved right, and the victim's claim for damages directly exercised against the re-appellant based on mandatory insurance (voluntary insurance) and voluntary insurance purchased by the victim against the non-life insurance company (hereinafter "the claim of this case"), the court below maintained the first instance court's decision dismissing the application for provisional seizure on the ground that the whole claim of this case constitutes the prohibited seizure claim under Article 32 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (the Act amended by Act No. 5793 of February 5, 199 and enforced July 1, 199, hereinafter "Self-Life Compensation Act").

2. The judgment of this Court

Article 9(1) of the Act provides that where the liability for damages occurred to the "insured, etc." under Article 3 of the same Act, the victim may claim directly the insurer, etc. to pay the insurance money, etc. to him/her, and Article 8 of the same Act defines the person who has purchased compulsory insurance and the person who has purchased the pertinent compulsory insurance contract as the "insured, etc.". Thus, the direct claim by the victim to the insurer, etc. under Article 9(1) of the same Act is limited to the scope of compulsory insurance money under Article 5(1) of the same Act in cases where the liability for damages occurred to the insured of a compulsory insurance (liability). (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6774 delivered on October 7, 2005). Accordingly, Article 32 of the same Act stipulating the prohibition of seizure of the right to claim under Article 9(1) of the same Act applies to the above scope.

Unlike compulsory (liability) insurance, the order of the court below that held that the whole claim of this case becomes prohibited from being seized by Article 32 of the same Act on the condition that the victim is entitled to exercise a direct right under Article 9 (1) of the same Act in relation to discretionary insurance in addition to compulsory (liability insurance) insurance, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles under Articles 9 and 32 of the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)