[구상금][하집1991(3),256]
In a case where the insured of a medical insurance policy gets his/her spouse on board a motor vehicle owned by him/her and his/her spouse gets the medical insurance benefits due to his/her injury, whether the medical insurance management corporation's claim for damages against the insured and claim for the payment of insurance proceeds against the insurer
In a case where the insured under the Medical Insurance Act of Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff operates an automobile owned by the insured under the Medical Insurance Act on the part of a public official and private school teachers and staff, and his/her spouse is injured by the accident, the insured is liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act for his/her spouse as the operator of the above automobile. Therefore, the Medical Insurance Management Corporation shall obtain the right to claim damages against the insured of the above spouse within the limit of the insurance benefits by providing the above spouse with the insurance benefits, and on the other hand, the above spouse acquires the right to claim the payment of the insurance money against the liability insurance business operator, so the
Articles 3 and 12 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and Article 46 of the Medical Insurance Act for Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff
Public Officials and Medical Insurance Foundation for Private School Teachers and Staff
Defendant 1 Company and one other
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant 2 shall pay from January 11, 1990 to 2,925,410 won among the gold 5,369,300 won and the gold 2,925,410 won, from May 29, 1990 to 3,630 won, from July 24, 1990 to July 23, 1991 to 25 percent per annum, and from the date following the date of full payment to the date of full payment, the following amount shall be paid jointly and severally with Defendant 1 Company;
B. Defendant 1 Co., Ltd shall pay an amount of KRW 3,00,000 among the amounts set forth in the above paragraph (a) above and KRW 2,925,410 among them, from January 11, 1990 to KRW 74,590 as to the remainder, from May 29, 190 to July 23, 191, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the amount of KRW 50,00 per annum as to the remainder of KRW 74,590.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against defendant 1 corporation are dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is to be borne by Defendant 2; the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. is to be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is to be borne by Defendant 1 Co., Ltd.
4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.
The defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 5,369,300 won and the amount of 2,925,410 won among them, from January 11, 1990 to 2,440,260 won, from May 29, 1990 to 3,630 won, from July 24, 1990 to July 23, 1991 to 25 percent per annum.
The Plaintiff is an insurer of medical insurance under the Medical Insurance Act for Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff, and Defendant 2 purchased automobile accident compensation insurance from Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”). However, around 16:35 on July 23, 1989, Defendant 2 was carrying the Nonparty’s wife on the above vehicle, and entered into the said insurance benefit liability insurance contract with Defendant 2 for the above insurance benefit of Defendant 2. The Nonparty was liable for damages to Defendant 2, who acquired the above insurance benefit of Defendant 2, within the limit of KRW 50,00,00,000 for the above insurance benefit of Defendant 2. The Plaintiff was liable for damages to Defendant 2,50,000,000 won for the above insurance benefit of Defendant 2, the total amount of the insurance benefit of Defendant 1’s Defendant 2, who acquired the above insurance benefit of KRW 3,50,000,000,000,000 for the above insurance benefit of Defendant 2,64,0.
Defendant 2 has no reason to assert that no claim for damages arising from a tort occurred between husband and wife.
Although Defendant 1 asserts that the spouse does not fall under the "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the fact that the spouse is the spouse cannot deny the identity of the other person under the above Act. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.
Next, regarding the scope of the Nonparty’s right to claim damages against Defendant 2, and the Nonparty’s medical expenses incurred for the treatment of injury caused by the said accident are KRW 6,715,270, as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to support the Nonparty that there was any negligence on the part of the Nonparty regarding the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by the said accident. Therefore, the said right to claim damages is more than the above medical expenses.
Although the Plaintiff sought full payment of the above insurance benefits to Defendant 1, the amount of liability insurance for damage caused by injury is limited according to the type of injury as stipulated in Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the attached Table 1 of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The Non-Party’s injury grade of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of insurance proceeds to Defendant 1 is limited to KRW 3,00,000,000 pursuant to the provisions of attached Table 1 of the same Table.
Therefore, Defendant 2 shall pay the Plaintiff the above insurance benefits amounting to KRW 5,369,30,300, which is the maximum amount of the above insurance benefits, and the delay damages thereon, and Defendant 2 shall be jointly and severally with Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 shall be jointly and severally liable with Defendant 2 to pay the above amount to KRW 3,00,000,00, and the delay damages shall be jointly and severally with Defendant 2. Thus, the above part of the Plaintiff’s claim and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1, which sought performance, cited the above portion of the Plaintiff’s claim and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1, which are reasonable, shall be dismissed as the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be apportioned to each losing party and shall be decided as per Disposition with provisional execution attached.
Judges Ansan-gu