B. Whether the purport of the above Paragraph (a) is to be bound by the payment criteria in the terms and conditions of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance in calculating the amount of damages that the court should compensate for.

B. In calculating the amount of damages that an insurance company should compensate, the purport of the above provision is not to be bound by the standards for payment under the terms and conditions of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In accordance with Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, the legal nature of the victim's direct right of action is that the insurer concurrently takes over the obligation of the insured 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da2530 delivered on May 11, 1993). From this point of view, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the amount of damages that the defendant is liable to compensate should be limited within the limit of the amount according to the payment criteria (based on comparative negligence, consolation money, funeral expenses, and lost income) under the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract (based on comparative negligence, consolation money, funeral expenses, and lost income) on the ground that the above provision does not mean that the payment criteria under the terms and conditions should be bound by the court in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate, but it is not proper to order the plaintiff to pay damages for delay after the date of the accident in this case to the first instance court.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)