[1] The purpose of Article 28 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[2] The meaning of an agreement that stipulates that the victim of a traffic accident will immediately return the full amount of the compensation received to the Guarantee Business operator to the extent of the amount that the victim received in the event that the victim received the compensation for damage from the victim's side while claiming the Guarantee Business Operator for the

[1] In light of the purpose of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business and the relationship with Article 31(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the purport of Article 28(2) of the same Act is that the Government shall be exempted from liability for compensation to the extent of the victim’s amount of compensation when the victim received compensation for the damage equivalent to the compensation from the perpetrator before receiving the compensation by the Guarantee Business.

[2] When the victim of a traffic accident requests the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation to pay compensation to the victim or to pay the compensation in the future, he/she shall immediately return the full amount of the compensation received to the victim within the limit of the amount paid to him/her. In light of the purport of Article 28(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the agreement between the Guarantee Business Operator and the victim based on the above written request for the payment of compensation shall be deemed to be an agreement to return the compensation in cases where the sum of the compensation and the compensation received from the perpetrator exceeds the actual amount of compensation before the victim receives the compensation, or after receiving the compensation, exceeds the actual amount of compensation.

[1] Articles 28(2) and 31(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Articles 28(2) and 31(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da62477 Decided April 15, 2005

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu District Court Decision 2003Na9948 Delivered on June 2, 2004

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Judgment of the court below

On November 9, 201, the court below held that the defendant 2 was not liable for damages for the damages of the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 for the damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 3 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or for the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or the non-party 2's damages of the non-party 1 or the non-party 37.

2. The judgment of this Court

The main contents of the Guarantee Business of Automobile Accident Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "Guarantee Business") stipulated in Chapter 5 of the Act are to compensate for the damage of the victim who died or was injured due to an accident caused by the operation of a non-insurance vehicle within the insurance coverage of liability insurance. It is to supplement the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance System, which is legally enforced for the purpose of protecting the victims of traffic accidents caused by a motor vehicle or non-insurance motor vehicle.

Article 28(1) of the Act provides that if a victim receives compensation or a compensation under the State Compensation Act, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or other Acts prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "other Acts"), he/she shall be exempted from liability for compensation to the extent of the amount of compensation that he/she receives. This provision provides that the relationship between the payment of compensation and the adjustment of compensation, etc. under other Acts is provided, and where a victim is entitled to compensation or compensation under other Acts, he/she shall be exempted from liability for compensation under the guaranteed business. Therefore, the government’s remedy under the guaranteed business is to relieve the victim of traffic accidents that cannot be compensated by other Acts

Meanwhile, Article 28(2) of the Act provides that when the victim is liable for compensation from a person liable for compensation for damage under the assistance program, the Government shall be exempted from liability for compensation from the coverage of the amount of compensation. This provision provides that the victim shall be exempted from liability for compensation from the assistance program to the extent of the amount of compensation. This provision provides for the relationship between the payment of compensation by the assistance program and the compensation by the tortfeasor before the victim is paid the compensation from the tortfeasor. If the Government is exempted from liability for compensation from the assistance program even when the victim is paid the compensation after the victim is paid the compensation from the tortfeasor, the Government shall provide that the victim shall exercise the right to compensation from the tortfeasor by paying the compensation to the victim under Article 31 of the Act. The victim shall not exercise the right to claim compensation from the tortfeasor within the extent of the compensation received from the Government. Thus, if the victim receives compensation from the tortfeasor after being paid the compensation by the assistance program, it shall return it to the Government, regardless of the purpose and purport of the Act that the victim shall be exempted from liability for compensation from the tortfeasor’s own liability for compensation program.

According to the records, when the defendants filed a claim for the payment of the compensation in this case against the plaintiff, they may immediately return the full amount of the compensation received to the plaintiff within the limit of the amount that they received to the plaintiff." In light of the purport of Article 28 (2) of the Act, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants based on the above claim for the payment of compensation in this case shall be deemed to be an agreement to return the compensation in the case where the sum of the compensation and the compensation received from the perpetrator exceeds the actual amount of damages before receiving the compensation, or after receiving the compensation, exceeds the actual amount of damages.

Nevertheless, the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business Act and Article 28 (2) of the Self-Support Business Act, etc., even if the defendants interpreted that they will return the full amount of compensation within the scope of compensation even in cases where they receive damages from the perpetrator in accordance with the literary fishing gear.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)