ELa District Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejongyang, Attorneys Go-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 7, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gadan429387 Decided May 6, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 32,50,000 won with 5% per annum from January 1, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The court's explanation on this part is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, as stated in the part of "the plaintiff's assertion". Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main text of Article 420

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of office management

In order to establish the office management, it is required that the office work is another person's business and there is an intention to transfer the actual benefit of management to another person, i.e., the intention to manage the office work on behalf of another person, and further it is not clear that the handling of the office work is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will (Supreme Court Decision 97Da26326, Oct. 10, 197). Accordingly, the plaintiff's own refusal to receive and process the insurance accident of this case in relation to the process of payment of insurance money on behalf of the above victim, and it is argued that the plaintiff paid the insurance money on behalf of the defendant who is the legal obligor while paying the above insurance money to the above victim, or that the plaintiff waivers the insurance claim against the above victim against the above victim's insurance money [It is difficult to view that the plaintiff's agent's intention to waive the right to claim against the party involved in the accident of this case and the joint tortfeasor of this case, or that the plaintiff's expression of intent to pay the insurance money to the defendant is in violation of the defendant's liability insurance money.

In addition, in order for the plaintiff to claim expenses equivalent to the above liability insurance proceeds to the defendant, the payment of insurance proceeds to the above victim shall be effective as payment by a third party and thus, the defendant's obligation to pay liability insurance proceeds to the above victim shall be extinguished. Meanwhile, the third party's obligation to pay insurance proceeds shall be the requirement that the repayment has been made with the intent of the third party to pay other person's obligation, and such intent shall be expressed through the designation of repayment indicating that the repayment is made by the third party under Article 469 of the Civil Act (in the case that the payment is not made, the meaning of the contribution cannot be understood as the creditor), and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff expressed his intent to pay the above insurance proceeds clearly or implicitly while paying the above insurance proceeds to the defendant (as seen above, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared a waiver of right to give up "all claims to the parties to the accident in this case" and signed and sealed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant still did not have the above obligation to pay the victim's obligation to pay insurance proceeds to the above third party.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s obligation to pay insurance money to a victim is due to the victim’s direct right to claim insurance money (see Articles 41 and 10 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act). While the extinctive prescription is three years (see Articles 41 and 10 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act), the Plaintiff’s right to claim reimbursement of expenses or claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the management of affairs against the Defendant, claiming that the Plaintiff effectively repaid the Defendant’s obligation to pay insurance money to a third party, constitutes ten years as a general claim. If it is deemed that the Plaintiff effectively repaid the Defendant’s obligation to pay insurance money equivalent to the amount of the liability insurance money paid irrespective of the Defendant’s intent, the Defendant would be an unfair result that the Defendant assumes disadvantage unfairly extended the extinctive prescription period of the Defendant’s obligation. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion in view of the logic of the circular concept.

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of unjust enrichment

In order for unjust enrichment to be established, a person shall gain profits from another person's property or labor without any legal ground and thereby cause damage to another person (Article 741 of the Civil Act), and there is no effect of paying the above insurance money to the above victim as repayment by a third party, and therefore, as seen earlier, the defendant still bears the obligation to pay the above insurance money to the above victim. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the liability insurance money to the above victim was extinguished by the payment of the above insurance money to the above victim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)