(b) The requirements for the insurer’s payment of insurance proceeds and the counterpart to the payment of the insurance proceeds in a case where the insured claims insurance proceeds whose amount of damage has been determined and whose amount of damage has been claimed.

C. Whether the insurer of liability insurance is liable to pay to the victim damages for delay as determined between the insured and the victim

B. The General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Business Motor Vehicles provide that "the insured may claim for the payment of insurance money to the company when the amount of damage is confirmed by the final judgment, settlement in court, arbitration or written agreement, and the company shall promptly complete necessary investigation and pay insurance money when the insured receives the documents concerning the claim from the insured." If the insured does not provide that the insured would not pay the insurance money to the insured before the insured pays damages to a third party, it is reasonable to deem that the insurer has renounced the right to refuse payment under Article 724(1) of the Commercial Act. Therefore, if the insured satisfies the requirements prescribed in the terms and conditions, the insurer may exercise the right to claim insurance money against the insurer. In this case, the insurer who received the claim for the payment of insurance money from the insured shall choose to avoid the risk of double payment by directly paying the insurance money to the victim having a direct claim under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.

C. The insurer is obligated to pay all the amount of damages determined by the judgment of the victim and the insured to the insured, regardless of the original or late payment damages, unless there are special circumstances such as unjust damages not legally responsible to the insured.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below rejected the defendant's claim for exemption on the ground that the plaintiff's workplace is a workplace which ordinarily employs not less than five workers. In light of the records and records, the court below's above recognition and judgment are just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no reason to discuss

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the insurer shall not pay the whole or part of the insured amount to the insured before the third party receives compensation for any loss caused by an accident attributable to the insured," with respect to liability insurance, the above provision provides that "the insured shall not pay the whole or part of the insured amount to the insured before the insured is compensated by the third party." Thus, with respect to the relationship between the insurance claim against the insurer under Article 723 (1) and the third party's direct claim against the insurer under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, the insurer shall declare that the third party's direct claim takes priority over the insured's insurance claim. Thus, the insurer cannot set up against the victim who has direct claim against the insured with payment of the insurance amount before the third party receives compensation from the insured. Therefore, the insurer shall have the right to refuse the insured's claim under Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act before the third party receives compensation from the insured.

However, since the general insurance clauses of the defendant's business automobile, which are the contents of the insurance contract of this case, provide that "the insured may claim for payment of insurance money to the company when the amount of damage is confirmed by the confirmation of judgment, settlement in court, arbitration or written agreement, and the company shall complete the necessary investigation without delay and pay the insurance money when the insured receives the documents concerning the claim for insurance money from the insured (Articles 6 and 17 of the terms and conditions)." Since there is no provision that the insured does not pay the insurance money to the insured before the insured pays damages to a third party, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant renounced the right to refuse payment under Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act. Accordingly, the insured who entered into the insurance contract with the defendant can exercise the right to claim for insurance money against the defendant who is the insurer only if the requirements under the above terms and conditions are met. In this case, the defendant who is the insurer who received the claim from the plaintiff who is the insured shall choose to avoid the risk of double payment by directly paying the insurance money to the victim.

The court below held that the plaintiff, the insured, could seek insurance payment from the defendant, the insurer, even before compensation for damages to a third party pursuant to Article 6 of the defendant's insurance clause, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act. The above decision of the court below is just as a member of the court, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act, as discussed in the judgment below. There is no reason to discuss.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the amount of damages determined by a judgment between the victim and the insured is an original or delay damages (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da25004 delivered on January 14, 1994). Therefore, it is justifiable to order the court below to pay damages for delay that the plaintiff has the obligation to pay to the defendant according to the final judgment between the plaintiff and the victim. Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff paid part of the medical expenses and damages to the defendant much more before the complaint is served to the defendant and notified the defendant of the fact of payment. Thus, the court below is justifiable to order the defendant to pay damages for delay at an interest rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the defendant as to part of the above medical expenses and damages.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)