(영문) 대법원 2017.9.21.선고 2016다29357 판결

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

Reasons

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

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sep. 25, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree") provides for the amount of insurance money or mutual aid money such as liability insurance which a motor vehicle owner is required to purchase under Article 5 (1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "liability insurance money"), the amount of damages incurred to the victim within the scope of the amount set forth in [Attachment Table 1] in the case of the victim's injury (Article 2). The amount of damages incurred to the victim (hereinafter referred to as "ex post facto disability") after the treatment of the injury was completed shall be set out within the scope of the amount set forth in [Attachment Table 2], and Article 3 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for the sum of the amount paid under paragraph (1) 2 and 3.

In full view of the circumstances where the language of Article 3(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree consists of relatively clear concepts, as well as various circumstances such as the purport of the liability insurance system under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the principle of limited liability compensation, and the fact that it is possible to separately calculate the damage caused by injury and the injury caused by the latter disability pursuant to the principle of statutory interpretation, it is reasonable to interpret that Article 3(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree, which provides the method of calculating liability insurance in cases where the injured person caused a disability due to the same accident, not the amount of damage inflicted on the injured person within the scope of the total sum of the maximum amount under Article 3(1)2 and 3, rather than the amount of damage inflicted on the injured person (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da219415, Nov. 13, 2014).

According to these legal principles, the lower court should have determined the Defendant’s liability insurance proceeds by examining whether each of the damages exceeds the maximum amount of injury insurance proceeds as prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree and the amount of subsequent disability insurance proceeds, respectively, and by adding up the injury insurance proceeds calculated within the scope of each limit and the amount of subsequent disability insurance proceeds. Nevertheless, the lower court did not separately examine the amount of damages caused by the Plaintiff’s injury and the amount of damages caused by the subsequent disability, and without further examining whether the amount of damages caused by the Plaintiff’s injury and the amount of damages caused by the subsequent disability exceeds the maximum amount of liability insurance proceeds under the former Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 1] and the former Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 2] based on the Plaintiff’s injury, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant is liable insurance proceeds to pay each liability insurance proceeds.

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the amount of damages caused by the Plaintiff’s injury exceeds the maximum amount of liability insurance under attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree, and the amount of damages caused by the disability also exceeds the maximum amount of liability insurance under attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Decree. In such a case, there is no difference between the liability insurance amount calculated in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine and the liability insurance amount recognized by the lower court, and thus, the lower court’s above error did not have affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the records, the defendant, through the preparatory brief dated July 18, 2014, stated at the court below, paid KRW 5 million to the plaintiff, among the liability insurance proceeds that the plaintiff seeks, the defendant already paid to the plaintiff the maximum amount of KRW 71,063,630, which is the amount of the injury insurance proceeds that the plaintiff seeks, and the defendant paid to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 71,063,630, which is about 50% of the amount of the plaintiff's contribution to the plaintiff, so the defendant acquired the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 35,531,815 ( KRW 71,063,630, X50, which is the amount of KRW 30,000,000, which is the plaintiff's claim, and it can be known that the defendant submitted a documentary evidence corresponding to each of

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged the legitimacy or scope of the above assertion made by the defendant. However, the court below did not render any judgment on this issue. The court below erred by omitting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.