[2] The case holding that the above insurance company and the owner of the insured vehicle and the driver of the insured vehicle cannot be deemed to have acquired unjust enrichment equivalent to the above compensation in case where the automobile accident insurance company's automobile accident compensation guarantee business operator paid compensation to the victim on the ground that it rejected

[3] The case holding that in a case where the damage claim against an insurance company, etc. is extinguished by the prescription, since the victim did not claim against the insurance company, etc. the remainder after deducting the compensation received by the insurer, etc. because the insurer of the motor vehicle accident compensation had no obligation to pay the compensation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, even though it was mistakenly known that the insurer of the motor vehicle accident compensation had a duty to pay the compensation, the said insurer may exercise the right

[2] The case holding that, in a case where an insurance company obligated to pay legal insurance proceeds from a motor vehicle accident and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation has paid compensation to the victims on the ground that it rejected the payment of insurance proceeds, since it did not have the obligation to pay compensation pursuant to Article 26 (1) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the victims shall return it to the victims as unjust enrichment, but the above insurance company and the owner of the insured motor vehicle and the driver shall not be deemed to have obtained unjust enrichment in the amount of compensation since the above obligation to pay compensation or the direct payment of insurance proceeds is not extinguished.

[3] The case holding that in a case where a guarantee business operator of motor vehicle accident compensation has expired by the statute of limitations, since an insurance company is not a debtor's obligation to pay compensation under Article 26 (1) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act even though it does not have a duty to pay compensation, an insurance company claims for compensation from the victims, and a guarantee business operator has a duty to pay compensation under the same Act with the knowledge that there is a tort that the victims have a duty to pay compensation; the victims did not claim only the remainder after deducting the compensation received from the insurance company, etc.; and the victims did not file a separate lawsuit against the insurance company, etc., and the damage claim equivalent to the above compensation amount against the insurance company, etc. of the victims is extinguished by the statute of limitations, since the above guarantee business operator, not the debtor, loses its claims in good faith due to the prescription of the insurance

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The lower court determined that, on the premise that the traffic accident (hereinafter “accident”) occurred while driving a vehicle owned by Defendant Samsung F&M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung F&M Co., Ltd.”) on May 6, 2006, under the premise that the insurance company that concluded an automobile insurance contract with a vehicle that caused a traffic accident as an insured motor vehicle is refusing the payment of insurance money on the ground of the exemption clause on the ground that the accident was caused by unauthorized Driving, etc., including the case where the existence of liability for compensation by the insurance company of the accident in question is not objectively clearly identified, the lower court held that Defendant 3’s new meat processing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung F&M”), an insured motor vehicle of Defendant Samsung F&M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung F&M”), which was an insured motor vehicle of Defendant Samsung F&M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New F&M”), did not have any legal obligation under Article 26(1)26(1) of the Compensation Clause, even if the Plaintiff paid the victims total amount of KRW 693 million.

B. However, Article 26 (1) 2 of the Act provides that in cases where a person who is not an insurance policyholder, etc. (the person who subscribed to mandatory insurance and the insured under the relevant mandatory insurance contract) is liable for damages under Article 3 of the Act, the Government shall compensate for the damages he/she suffered within the limit of the liability insurance amount at the request of the victim, and Article 26 of the Act provides that the guarantee business of motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 26 of the Act provides that the Government shall compensate for the damages suffered by the victim who died or was injured due to an accident caused by the operation of a non-insurance vehicle within the limit of the insurance amount of the liability insurance. Thus, it is intended to supplement the motor vehicle liability insurance system legally enforced for the purpose of protecting the victim of a traffic accident caused by a non-insurance motor vehicle or a non-insurance motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da62477, Apr. 15, 2005). Thus, it is not clear that an insurance company is not an insurance policyholder under Article 26 (1) of the Act.2).

C. However, as stated in the judgment of the court below, if the defendant insurance company liable for the payment of insurance proceeds under the law of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff paid compensation to the victims solely on the ground that it asserted its obligation to pay insurance proceeds and rejected the payment of insurance proceeds, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff paid compensation to the victims under the above legal principles even though it did not have any obligation to pay compensation pursuant to Article 26 (1) 2 of the Act. Thus, the plaintiff's payment of compensation to the victims is provided without any legal ground, and it shall be returned to the victims by unjust enrichment. However, the defendants' obligation to pay compensation or direct payment of insurance proceeds is not extinguished due to the above payment of compensation. Thus, the defendants' payment of compensation does not immediately mean that the defendants obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the compensation.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the above compensation payment did not constitute unjust enrichment to the defendants is just in its conclusion, and the above error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, this part of the defendants' grounds for appeal is not accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff could not acquire the right of indemnity against the Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff’s compensation paid to the victims was paid in accordance with Article 26(1)2 of the Act, and the Plaintiff’s performance of its obligation to pay its insurance proceeds, and cannot be deemed to have discharged another’s obligation due to mistake.

However, as seen above, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay compensation under Article 26 (1) 2 of the Act. On the other hand, even if the Nonparty’s bereaved family members were to have discharged another person’s obligation due to mistake, if the obligee destroys a deed in good faith, waives a security, or loses their claim by prescription, the obligee may exercise the right to reimbursement against the obligor instead of claiming the return (Article 745 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and evidence adopted by the lower court and the lower court, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay compensation under Article 26 (1) subparag. 2 of the Act, even if the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay compensation to the victims, with the knowledge that the Defendant’s insurance company received the compensation from the victims and had the obligation to pay compensation under the above Act, and the Nonparty’s bereaved family members claimed the remainder after deducting the compensation received from the Defendant’s new land processing and Defendant 3, and the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement against the Defendants’ damages claim against the Defendants’ lapse of prescription.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below contrary to this is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of the right to indemnity due to the repayment of another person's obligation under Article 26 (1) 2 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, all of the judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)