Whether a traffic accident victim may claim the amount equivalent to medical expenses under the proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act within the limit of the amount prescribed in attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, regardless of whether the victim has contributed to the occurrence of the traffic accident (affirmative)

The proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sep. 25, 2008) provides that where the amount of damage suffered by the victim falls short of the amount of medical expenses calculated in accordance with the standards for medical fees under Article 13(1) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008), the amount equivalent to the medical expenses shall be paid as liability insurance money within the scope of the amount prescribed in [Attachment Table 1]. The purpose of the proviso of the proviso of the above Article is to interpret that the amount of damage calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence among the damage suffered by the victim of the traffic accident falls short of the amount of medical expenses corresponding to the above provision, it shall be interpreted that the victim of the traffic accident should pay the amount equivalent to the medical expenses as liability insurance money in order to guarantee the medical treatment of the victim of the traffic accident. Therefore, notwithstanding whether the victim contributed to the traffic accident or not.

Article 13(1) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (Amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; see current Article 15(1)); Article 3(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sep. 25, 2008; see current Article 3(1)2)

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da82793 Decided December 11, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 14)

Counterclaim Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seoman, Attorney Yang Gyeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2009Na81 decided June 17, 2009

The part of the judgment of the court below against the counterclaim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the second ground for appeal

The court below recognized the error of failing to observe the road condition and prevent accidents on the road surface with respect to the traffic accident in this case where the counter-party in which the counter-party in question, who had driven the off three-lanes among four-lanes, was faced with the vehicle parked in the parking-prohibited zone. After recognizing the fact that the non-party in the counter-party in the vehicle used on the counter-party in the counter-party, and sand was scattered on the road surface, the court below recognized the fault ratio of the counter-party in calculating the damages to the counter-party in calculating the damages to the counter-party in the form of 90%. In light of the records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, nor any error of incomplete deliberation, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, even though the court below found that sand was scattered on the road surface at the time of the traffic accident in this case, it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below to the purport that sand was scattered on the road surface in relation to the limitation of liability for damages, but it is merely a scarcity that does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sep. 25, 2008; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that where the amount of damage inflicted on the victim falls short of the corresponding amount of medical fees calculated in accordance with the standard of medical fees covered by automobile accident insurance under Article 13 (1) of the Act, the corresponding amount of medical expenses shall be paid as liability insurance money within the scope of the amount prescribed in [Attachment Table 1]. The purport of the proviso of the above proviso of subparagraph 2 is to interpret that the amount of damage calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence among the damage inflicted on the victim of the traffic accident falls short of the corresponding amount of medical expenses under the above provision, the victim of the traffic accident shall be deemed as the amount of damage corresponding to the medical expenses in order to guarantee medical treatment of the victim of the traffic accident and shall be paid as liability insurance money. Thus, the victim of the traffic accident may claim the corresponding amount of medical expenses under the proviso of subparagraph 2 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act).

According to the records, the plaintiff can be found to have suffered bodily injury, such as the right mouth, due to the instant traffic accident. According to Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act at the time of the instant traffic accident, the above injury shall be deemed to fall under the class 1 of the class 1 of the injury caused by 20 million won, which is recognized to fall under the class 1 of the class 1 of the injury caused by 20 million won, and the court below recognized the amount of damages incurred to the plaintiff in priority as KRW 18,153,161 of the damages caused to the plaintiff in priority. After examining where the degree of injury caused to the plaintiff in priority falls under any of the above [Attachment Table 1], the court below determined the maximum amount and determined the amount of damages, and after examining whether the above amount of damages falls under the amount of medical expenses calculated in accordance with the medical fee insurance standard, if the amount of damages falls short of the above medical expenses, it should have recognized the amount equivalent to the maximum amount

Nevertheless, the court below did not make any decision on the assertion of the Counterclaim, and it shall be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act or by omitting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

On the other hand, Article 3 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Follow-up Disability provides that the victim shall compensate for the amount of damage incurred within the scope of the amount set forth in [Attachment Table 2], and since the above provision does not purport to guarantee a certain amount like subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same paragraph, the argument in the grounds of appeal on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the counterclaim is reversed, and that part of 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 Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)