1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: (a) under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Plaintiff" under the fifth through the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "foreign damage insurance"; and (b) from the sixth to the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part above through the third part shall be cited as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following: (c) under the second part, the insurer shall be liable for damages due to tort or non-performance of obligation at the same time; and (c) in case where the insured claims damages against the insurer, the insurance money received from the insurer pursuant to the non-life insurance contract has the nature of the premium paid to the insurer up to the time in preparation for the occurrence of the insurance accident, and is different from the third party's liability for damages, it shall not be deducted from its amount of liability for damages.

Therefore, the above insured may claim against a third party for the performance of his/her liability for damages remaining without compensating for the insurance proceeds received from the insurer (However, the liability within the limited scope by negligence offsetting, etc.). If the total amount of damages remains more than the amount of the third party's liability for damages, the third party may claim for the full amount of its liability for damages against the third party. If the remaining amount of damages is less than the amount of the third party's liability for damages, the third party may claim for the full amount of its liability for damages.

In the latter case, the insurer may, by subrogation, claim against the third party the amount equivalent to the difference between the third party's liability and the remaining amount of damage.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da46211 Decided January 22, 2015). Evidence A No. 6.