1. As to the grounds of appeal on deduction of self-charges

A. The legal nature of the victim’s direct right to claim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim is the right to claim damages against the insurer, and the insured’s right to claim damages against the insurer is not the right to transform or change the insured’s insurance claim against the insurer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819, May

However, the insurer’s obligation to compensate for damages based on such direct claim of the victim is premised on an insurance contract, and is recognized within the insurer’s limit of liability under the insurance contract. Thus, if the insurance clause provides for the insurer to deduct the self-paid amount from the insurance amount payable by the insurer, the insurer bears the obligation to pay the victim directly for the amount obtained by deducting

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) On August 28, 2009, Co-Defendant B entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant for non-distribution business (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The instant insurance contract includes a special clause on the liability of the owner of the facility (management) who has injured another person’s body or has caused damage to another person’s property due to an unexpected accident arising from the performance of duties according to the use of the instant building and the instant building, or who has caused damage to another person’s property due to damage to another person’s property. The maximum amount of compensation is KRW 30 million per person and KRW 30 million per accident.

2) Article 2(1) of the Special Clause on Liability for Damages of the Owner of Facility according to the instant insurance contract provides the scope of the damages the Defendant compensates, such as the amount of damages paid by the insured to the victim (No. 1), the expenses or beneficial expenses (No. 2) incurred by the insured to prevent damage, etc.

3) The "other matters concerning the purchase of the insurance policy of this case" include "other matters concerning the purchase of the insurance policy of this case": "Liability of the owner of the facility and the maximum amount of compensation: 10,000 won per accident".

4) At around 16:50 on July 3, 201, each of the vehicles owned by facility users D, E, F, G, H, I, J.K, and L (hereinafter referred to as “victims”) was destroyed by fire, which was caused by a fire inside the parking lot of the first floor of the instant building, around 16:50, 201. On July 22, 2011, the Plaintiff, who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the said victims, directly paid KRW 8.32 million to D, KRW 2.79 million to E on July 21, 2011, KRW 1,58,10 won to F on July 15, 201, KRW 201, KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to each of the instant victims, and KRW 2.37,71,717,201,71,71.201, Jul. 21, 201

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that 100,000 won should be deducted for the reasons stated in its reasoning. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the victim's direct right and the terms and conditions of the mutual aid agreement for self-payment, which are acknowledged as the victim under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, thereby affecting

On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819 Decided May 27, 1994 cited by the court below is inappropriate to invoke this case as it differs from this case concerning the deduction of self-charges.

2. As to the grounds of appeal that no parking lot is included in the subject of compensation, the lower court determined that the accident occurred on the first floor of the instant building, which is the facility indicated in the insurance policy of this case, is included in the subject of compensation according to the special terms and conditions for liability of the facility owner (management).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the exemption clause

The court below rejected the defendant's defense of immunity by citing the judgment of the court of first instance, since each damaged vehicle parked by the user of the building of this case cannot be deemed possessed by the co-defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as "A"), and it is difficult to deem that A protected, managed, and controlled each damaged vehicle. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's aforementioned determination is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on possession

4. Conclusion

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 In-bok

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han