The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25149, Feb. 5, 2014)

(a) The same shall apply;

The proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that where the amount of damage sustained by the victim falls short of the amount of medical fees calculated according to the standards for medical fees under Article 15(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the amount equivalent to the medical expenses shall be paid as liability insurance money within the scope of the amount prescribed in [Attachment Table 1]. The purport of the proviso of the proviso is to interpret that even in a case where the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the percentage of negligence among the damage suffered by the victim of the traffic accident falls short of the amount of medical expenses under the above provision, the relevant medical expenses shall be deemed as the amount of damage in order to guarantee the victim’s medical treatment due to the traffic accident as liability insurance money. Therefore, the victim of the traffic accident may claim the amount corresponding to the medical expenses under the proviso of subparagraph 2 as liability insurance money under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, regardless of whether the victim has contributed to the occurrence of the traffic accident, or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4563

the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle, and the Defendant is the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

On April 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was a driver of the E-Driving; (b) while driving the Defendant’s vehicle on April 21:45, 2012, the Defendant caused an accident of shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle of the E-driving, which was going to the left left and left to the left at the left by neglecting the center line from the Ycheon-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s fault; and (c) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s medical expenses due to such accident.

Therefore, the defendant's medical expenses under the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.