2018Da269739 Claims

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Corporation

Law Firm Dowon (Attorney Han-gu in charge)

Case Non-Life Insurance Co., Ltd.

Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Guro 117 (Renal dong)

Representative Director Yang-hee

Law Firm Hong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Na37644 Decided August 21, 2018

May 14, 2020

The judgment of the original court shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. According to the reasoning and record of the original judgment, the following facts are revealed. 1) Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to Nonparty 1’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the vehicle owned by the Kitrenss (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). Nonparty 2, the consent insured by the Defendant, was negligent while driving the Defendant vehicle, and the accident of shocking the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred while Nonparty 2, who was on the Defendant’s vehicle, was killed, and Nonparty 3 was injured by Nonparty 3, the mother of Nonparty 2, who was on the part of Nonparty 3, who was on the Defendant’s vehicle. Nonparty 3, including 168,512,010 won, and paid 215,000 won and 50% of the Defendant’s negligence to Nonparty 3, who was on the part of Nonparty 2, who was on the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. The court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the reimbursement of damages of this case for the same reason. 1) As long as the plaintiff, who is an insurer among joint illegal actors, paid damages to the non-party 3, the victim, the defendant, who is the insurer of the non-party 2, the other joint tortfeasor, barring special circumstances, has the right to claim the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence on the part of the defendant against the non-party 2, the insurer of the non-party 2, the other joint tortfeasor. 2) However, the non-party 2 and the victim non-party 3 are in a relationship with their social status or social life with the mother who is a lineal family member, so the compensation for damages of this case shall be applied to the victim's negligence. In this case, since the non-party 4 (1) of the Mutual Agreement on the Deliberation of Motor Vehicle Insurance Dispute (hereinafter referred to as the "this case's enforcement agreement") and the enforcement agreement thereof (hereinafter referred to as the "the enforcement agreement of this case") are not subject to the compensation of the plaintiff 3 (2) and the non-party 3).

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. According to the reasoning and records of the judgment of the US Won under Article 45 of the enforcement agreement of this case under the mutual agreement of this case, the following circumstances can be revealed as to the instant mutual agreement and enforcement agreement of this case, and in particular, Article 45 of the enforcement agreement of this case (hereinafter “instant provision”).

1) The instant mutual agreement provides that, for the purpose of the reasonable and economic settlement of disputes arising between an insurer and a business entity on the ground that the dispute between the victim and his/her family members was concurrently responsible for motor vehicle insurance or mutual aid, the provisions of the instant mutual agreement shall be applied between the victim and the mutual aid business entity (see Articles 1, 2, 1, and 3). The instant agreement shall be formulated to govern the specific enforcement of the instant mutual agreement and the detailed processing procedures of the instant mutual agreement. The mutual agreement shall provide that one of the agreed companies shall be paid damages for the prompt payment of damages if it is deemed that there were no reasonable and economic reasons for the occurrence of the dispute between the victim and the victim and the mutual aid business entity (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Du16660, Sept. 1, 2006). The said mutual agreement shall provide that, in order for the victim to take advantage of the mutual agreement between the victim and the mutual aid business entity to be treated as damages, the said agreement shall not provide for the settlement of damages.

B. In a case where multiple insured persons are liable for damages to the victims due to the same automobile accident in the automobile insurance, insured benefits also exist independently for each insured person. Therefore, in principle, the existence of liability for damages should be determined by considering each insured person as Eul individually, such as the requirements for the occurrence of liability for damages and the application of the exemption clause (see Article 9 of the Defendant’s Automobile Insurance Clause).According to the individual application principle of the insured, even if there is no requirement for the occurrence of liability for damages to some of multiple insured persons or there is a reason for exemption, the insurer ultimately bears the liability for compensation if there is a requirement for the occurrence of liability for damages to other insured persons even if there is no reason for exemption and there is no reason for exemption.

According to these terms and conditions or the legal principles, only part of multiple insured persons are victims and their status.

It is reasonable to view that the provision of this case does not apply to cases where the insured who does not fall under the victim's individual application principles exist and the latter is still liable to compensate the victim regardless of negligence on the part of the victim. In such cases, inasmuch as the latter treatmentr did not comply with the procedure or method prescribed in the provision of this case and paid compensation amount to the victim, it cannot be seen that the latter treatmentr violated the provision of this case on the ground that the latter treatmentr paid compensation amount to the victim without complying with the procedure or method stipulated in the provision of this case. This is because, from the perspective of the latter treatmentr, the latter treatmentr can seek compensation against the latter treatmentr based on the insured who is not the victim's non-victim among the insured workers, and the latter treatmentr is still liable to compensate the victim. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the standard clause of automobile insurance is not applicable to the case where the latter treatmentr files a lawsuit with the insurer under the provision of this case on the payment basis of insurance money, but the general standard clause of automobile insurance contract is not applicable to the insurer.

Therefore, in a case where a pre-treatmentr filed a lawsuit seeking indemnity against a post-treatmentr B, the provision on full compensation for medical expenses under the standard terms and conditions for automobile insurance remains excluded. As such, if the pre-treatmentr is required to pay the full amount of medical expenses to the victim within the coverage regardless of the degree of fault on the victim himself/herself or the victim, regardless of the degree of negligence on the part of the victim, the pre-treatmentr did not comply with the procedures and methods prescribed in the instant provision while paying the full amount of medical expenses to the victim in accordance with the provision on full compensation for medical expenses, the post-treatmentr cannot refuse to pay the full amount of compensation to the pre-treatmentr on this ground.

D. We examine this case in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. According to the individual application principle of the insured in the accident of this case, the defendant still bears liability for damages to the non-party 3, the victim, who is the non-party 3, at the time of considering the fault on the part of the victim, and thus, is not subject to the application of the provision of this case that considers the negligence on the part of the victim. In addition, since the plaintiff paid damages to the non-party 3, KRW 168,512,010 out of the damages that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 3 was based on the provision on the total amount compensation under the automobile insurance clause of the case, even if the plaintiff did not comply with the procedure or method stipulated in the provision of this case while paying the above money, the subsequent treatment company cannot refuse the payment of the compensation amount.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application of the instant provision, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, in determining that the instant provision is applicable to the instant accident. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case B is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa