Whether it is necessary to conduct arbitration or compromise in relation to the determination of the amount of compensation to be made between the victim of the traffic accident and the motor vehicle insurance company, etc. to which the perpetrator has joined with the victim of the traffic accident in return for money or valuables (negative)

Even in cases where it is necessary for an adjuster to clarify the grounds for the entries in the damage adjusting report at the request of an insurance company in the course of performing his/her duties and present his/her opinions on the validity thereof, and to receive money and valuables or receive remuneration, and to conduct arbitration or compromise in relation to the determination of the amount of damages to be made between the victim of a traffic accident and the motor vehicle insurance company, etc. to which the perpetrator is a party, may not be deemed necessary matters concerning the

Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 2000) (see current Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Act)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 99No8606 delivered on March 23, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the scope of duties of an adjuster

The duties of a adjuster are to confirm the fact of damages, to determine the appropriateness of the terms and conditions of insurance, the application of relevant laws and regulations, to determine the amount of damages, the situation of insurance proceeds, and other matters necessary for damage adjustment (see Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act). Even if it is necessary for a adjuster to clarify the grounds for the entries in a damage adjustment report at the request of an insurance company and to present his/her opinions on the validity of the entries, it is not necessary to conduct arbitration or compromise in relation to the determination of damages to be made between the victim of a traffic accident and the automobile insurance company to which the perpetrator has joined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do563, May 10, 194).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of dealing with legal affairs concerning reconciliation in general legal cases by promising the victim of traffic accident to receive about 10% of the agreed amount received from the insurance company as commission for 34 times in collusion with the non-indicted and participate in damage adjustment business in the settlement between the victim of traffic accident and the insurance company even though the defendant is not an attorney-at-law. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of duties of an adjuster under Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act or as to Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. This part of the grounds for appeal is not acceptable.

2. As to collection

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below recognized that the defendant acquired 8,550,000 won out of 48,840,000 won of the total fees received from the client in collusion with the non-indicted in collusion with the non-indicted, and it is just to collect the collected amount of 38,840,000 won, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the legal principles as to the collection

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)