The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The legal nature of the victim’s direct right to claim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim is the right to claim damages against the insurer, not the insured’s right to claim damages against the insurer or the right corresponding

The insurer’s liability for damages upon the victim’s direct claim is based on an insurance contract, and the insurer’s liability should be acknowledged within the scope of the insurer’s liability limit under an insurance contract. It does not mean that the court is bound by the payment criteria for the automobile comprehensive insurance terms and conditions in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated for the victim

(2) On May 27, 1994, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused significant damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle to its original condition on July 26, 2017, with a volume of approximately five months, and the transaction value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident. The transaction value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is equivalent to KRW 29,50,00,000; ② the instant accident was repaired due to the destruction of the backer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the instant vehicle’s string, the stringer, the stringer floor, the stringer panel, the stringer panel, and the stringrringr, and the stringr, the 3,765,789 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle incurred significant damage to the extent that it is impossible to fully restore the Plaintiff’s vehicle price to its original condition; and ④ the 10% of the amount of the instant comprehensive insurance policy.