Whether the short-term extinctive prescription provision of Article 662 of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the claim for mutual aid under the Land Transport Promotion Act by applying mutatis mutandis Article 664 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, Article 62 of the Commercial Act concerning short-term prescription shall also apply mutatis mutandis to mutual insurance under Article 664 of the Commercial Act, since there is no difference between mutual insurance or profit insurance in the necessity of reducing the prescription period for insurance claims. However, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Association Act are similar to mutual insurance in its nature even though mutual insurance is not an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act, so the provisions of Article 664 of the Commercial Act concerning the short-term extinctive prescription period under Article 662 of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the extinctive prescription period for mutual aid claims by car transport business operators who have joined mutual-aid business against mutual-aid business operators.

Article 64(Article 662) of the Commercial Act, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Transport Promotion Act

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

[Defendant-Appellant]

National Freight Trucking Association (Attorney Lee Do-hwan)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na14102 delivered on August 24, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be corrected to the "National Trucking Business Mutual Aid Association" and the "National Trucking Business Mutual Aid Association" indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance to the "National Trucking Business Mutual Aid Association

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

Therefore, even if the defendant did not pay the mutual aid money to the plaintiff on the grounds as alleged in the theory of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the prescription period for the plaintiff's right to claim the mutual aid money against the defendant cannot be interrupted. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or mistake of facts that affected the judgment

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Article 662 of the Commercial Code provides that the extinctive prescription of a claim for insurance amount shall expire if it is not exercised within two years, and the period of prescription of a general commercial claim shall be reduced more than that of a general commercial claim. The reason is that it is necessary to secure the clarity of an insurer's property through prompt settlement of insurance money for the normal operation of the insurance business.

On the other hand, Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides that the provisions of the Commercial Act concerning insurance clauses shall apply mutatis mutandis to mutual insurance to the extent not inconsistent with its nature. However, in the case of the necessity of shortening the prescription period for insurance claims, there is no difference between mutual insurance or profit-making insurance in the form of a stock company. Therefore, Article 662 of the Commercial Act concerning short-term prescription should be applied mutatis mutandis to mutual insurance under Article 664 of the Commercial Act.

However, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are similar to the mutual insurance in its nature even though it is not an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act. Therefore, the provision of Article 664 of the Commercial Act concerning the extinctive prescription of a claim for mutual aid by an automobile transport business operator who has joined the mutual aid fund should apply mutatis mutandis to the short-term extinctive prescription of Article 662 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff, a trucking transport business operator, had the right to claim against the defendant, who is a mutual aid business operator under Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, expired due to the lapse of the two-year statute of limitations is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no reason

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. Since it is apparent in the record that there is an error in the text of the judgment of the first instance and the Defendant’s indication, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)