A. Whether the insurer should bear the necessary and accrued expenses incurred by the insured’s emergency action to prevent the expansion of damage without proving the legal liability of the insured at the time of the occurrence of the insured event (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that if the insured, as the perpetrator, without liability for damages, is under joint and several liability for medical expenses to prevent the aggravation of state of damage by promptly receiving medical treatment from a victim who has lost awareness of his/her responsibility immediately after the traffic accident, the insurer shall compensate for the part of the medical expenses spent until the insurer's exemption notice is given;

(c) The case holding that, under the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance, if the insurer compensates for losses exceeding the amount payable as liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it is stipulated that the insurer compensates for losses exceeding the amount payable as liability insurance in case where the automobile does not subscribe to the liability insurance, the amount payable or payable as liability insurance out of the insured losses shall be deducted from the amount payable as liability insurance;

A. In the case of non-life insurance, the expenses incurred by the insured in order to prevent the expansion of damage shall be borne by the insurer (Article 680(1) of the Commercial Act). This is, in principle, premised on the occurrence of the insured events (Article 680(1) of the Commercial Act). Thus, even in the case of non-life insurance, the insurer has no liability to prevent damage with respect to any accident for which the insurer is not liable, and thus, the insurer’s burden of expenses, etc. shall not occur. However, if the insured engages in an urgent act to prevent the expansion of damage without proof of the legal liability of the insured in the event of an accident, it is reasonable to interpret that the insurer bears the necessary

(b) The case holding that if the insured, as the perpetrator, not liable for damages, was jointly and severally guaranteed the liability for medical expenses to prevent the aggravation of the state of damage by promptly receiving medical treatment from a victim who has lost awareness of his/her responsibility immediately after the traffic accident, the insurer shall compensate for the part of the medical expenses spent until the insurer's exemption notice is given.

(c) The case holding that, under the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance, if the insurer compensates for the damage exceeding the amount payable as liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and if the automobile does not subscribe to the liability insurance, the insurer is entitled to compensate for the damage exceeding the amount payable as liability insurance, the amount payable as liability insurance out of the damage suffered by the insured shall be deducted from the amount payable as liability insurance.

(b)Paragraph 1 of article 680 of the Commercial Code, article 720 of the Commercial Code, section 719 of the Commercial Code;

[Judgment of the court below]

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na24658 delivered on October 16, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to the first and second points

The court below recognized the fact that the defendant company notified the plaintiff of the exemption of the defendant company from the accident of this case on May 27, 1987 based on the macro-Evidence. In light of the records, the fact finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

On the third ground for appeal

In the case of non-life insurance, the insured is required to prevent the expansion of damage, and the beneficial cost is borne by the insurer (Article 680(1) of the Commercial Act), which is, in principle, premised on the occurrence of the insured events. Thus, even in the case of non-life insurance, there is no liability to prevent any accident for which the insurer is not liable for compensation, and thus, there is no problem such as the burden of the insurer's burden of expenses. However, in the case of an accident, even though it is not proved that the insured's legal liability is not verified in the case of an accident, if the insured's urgent act was done to prevent the expansion of damage, it is necessary to do so, and

According to the duly established judgment of the court below, the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on February 6, 1987. On April 18, 198, when the plaintiff driving the above automobile and driving the motorway without permission, and the plaintiff transferred the above non-party to the hospital for treatment. At that time, the above non-party cannot recover consciousness and contact his family with the above non-party. Meanwhile, the hospital's joint guarantor could not give treatment without any joint guarantor of the above non-party's liability to pay the above non-party's medical expenses. The plaintiff's liability to pay the above non-party's 1 to the defendant company for damages to the non-party 2. The defendant company did not notify the plaintiff of the above 97 medical expenses's liability for damages to the non-party 2.987, which is the presumption that the above non-party's liability for damages to the non-party 2.987, which is the premise of the defendant company's liability for damages to the plaintiff.

Based on the above facts, the court below held that the traffic accident of this case occurred due to the full-time or gross negligence of the above non-party (the extent of exemption from the plaintiff's liability), and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to compensate the plaintiff. However, while it is difficult to determine whether the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages immediately after the accident occurred as the perpetrator of the above accident, the plaintiff provided joint and several surety for the above treatment expenses in order to prevent further aggravation of the state of damage by promptly treating the victim who has lost awareness by suffering from serious injury. Thus, this shall be deemed to be the act of preventing a minimum expansion of damage required for the plaintiff in preparation for the case where the plaintiff who is the perpetrator is liable to compensate for damages without the existence of liability. Accordingly, the part of the treatment expenses spent until the notice of exemption from the defendant company should be included in the expenses that the defendant company should compensate. In light of the above legal principles, it is justified that the judgment of

However, while the court below explained the plaintiff's act of joint guarantee of the above medical expense and liability as an act to prevent the expansion of damages, it states that the above expenditure amounts to defense expenses under Article 720 of the Commercial Act. However, defense expenses under Article 720 of the Commercial Act refer to the expenses of judicial and extra-judicial proceedings incurred by the insured against the victim's claim for compensation, and it is difficult to view the joint and several liability act of this case as constituting a joint and several liability act of this case. However, since the court below states that the defendant company, the insurer, should bear the above expenses

In addition, according to the records of the case, in addition to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case and seeking the payment of insurance money under the insurance contract of this case as the cause of the claim, the plaintiff in the preparatory document of September 2, 191 of the court below, and the plaintiff, under the situation of urgency of the victim's operation at the time, had the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's obligation to pay medical expenses, and had the victim be hospitalized. Under the insurance contract, the defendant, who is the insurer, under the insurance contract, failed to notify the plaintiff as the insured immediately and neglected his duty of trust and good faith to make the plaintiff terminate the above joint and several liability and cause damage to the plaintiff. In light of the overall purport of the above argument, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's act of jointly and severally guaranteed medical expenses for the treatment of the victim constitutes an act to prevent the expansion of damage, and thus, the plaintiff's act of seeking the payment of expenses for the payment of expenses based thereon is also included. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's act of joint and several liability guarantee

Concerning No. 4

The court below recognized the total amount of the medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff for his joint and several liability until the defendant company's notification of exemption from liability as expenses for prevention of damage.

However, according to the records, the defendant asserted that the comprehensive insurance of this case is to compensate for damages exceeding the amount of liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and that the comprehensive insurance of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is to compensate for the damages exceeding the amount of liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. With respect to the insurer's liability for compensation, Article 9 of the Terms and Conditions (No. 1-2), as to the insurer's liability for compensation, the insurer is to compensate for the damages exceeding the amount of liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act by the insured's death or injury, and the insurer is to compensate for damages exceeding the amount of liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. If the automobile is not covered by the liability insurance, it is apparent that the insurer is to compensate for damages exceeding the amount of liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, among the damages suffered by the insured due to the operation of an insured vehicle.

If so, the court below should review whether the amount of liability insurance can be paid or paid, and if so, there is an error in the omission of judgment or incomplete hearing which did not take such measures, and it shall be deemed that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument on this point shall be with merit.

Therefore, this part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.