(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below where the interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of statutes applicable to specific cases under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act was made

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which interpreted the meaning of "when the insurance benefits were paid to the medical care institution" as the requirement for acquiring the right to indemnity under Article 46 (1) of the former Medical Insurance Act at the time when the insurer actually paid the insurance money to the medical care institution, and the court below's interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of the law applicable to the specific case in question under Article 3 (2) of the so

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's insured, on June 20, 1991, the non-party 1, who suffered injury due to traffic accident caused by the plaintiff's malfunction of the defendant driving, and received medical treatment by being hospitalized at ○○○ Hospital, which is medical insurance handling agency. The plaintiff paid 9,118,050 won to the above medical care institution on January 21, 1992, and barring special circumstances, the defendant, the perpetrator of the above traffic accident, was liable to pay the above insurance money to the plaintiff who subrogated to the non-party 1 under Article 46 (1) of the Medical Insurance Act. Since the plaintiff's right to indemnity against the non-party 1 was extinguished by an agreement between the defendant and the non-party 1 before the subrogation takes effect, the plaintiff's defense against the non-party 1 cannot be interpreted as 9,000 won before the plaintiff's reimbursement of the insurance money to the non-party 1, the defendant's 19,001, regardless of its purport.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

In full view of the provisions of Articles 29, 32, 35, and 36 (Medical Care Costs, etc.) of the Medical Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4728, Jan. 7, 1994; hereinafter the same), medical care benefits under the Medical Insurance Act shall, in principle, be considered to be in the form of spot benefit in which the insurer or the medical care handling agency designated by the insurer or the insurer’s organization provides medical care until the disease or injury is cured. Accordingly, medical care benefits under the Medical Insurance Act shall be considered to be in the form of spot benefit in which the insurer or the medical care handling agency designated by the insurer or the insurer’s organization provides medical care benefits to a third party within the scope of the insurance benefits. Therefore, since the insured has actually received medical care benefits, the medical insurance association shall be deemed to have acquired the right to claim reimbursement against the third party within the scope of the insurance benefits (see

Nevertheless, the court below interpreted the meaning of "when the insurer has paid the insurance benefits to the medical care institution as the requirement for acquiring the right to indemnity under Article 46 (1) of the Medical Insurance Act," and it is clear that the Supreme Court has affected the conclusion of the judgment because it is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the law applicable to the specific case of the so-called specific case under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act. Therefore, there is reason to point this out.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)