Commencement of the statute of limitations of insurance claims

Unless special circumstances exist, the statute of limitations of the right to claim insurance proceeds from the time when the insured event occurred, barring special circumstances, since the right to claim insurance proceeds is only abstract right before the occurrence of the insured event, and the right to claim insurance proceeds from the time when the insured event occurred. However, in cases where it is objectively unclear whether the insured event occurred or not, and it is impossible for the claimant to know of the occurrence of the insured accident without negligence, the statute of limitations of the right to claim insurance proceeds from the time when the insured event occurred. Thus, the interpretation that the statute of limitations of the right to claim insurance proceeds from the time when the insured event occurred is too harsh to the claimant, and cannot be seen as consistent with the principles of social justice and equity as well as with the reason for the existence of the statute of limitations system. Therefore, if it is impossible to confirm the occurrence of the insured

Article 62 of the Commercial Act, Articles 166(1) and 174 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da39822 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2240), Supreme Court Decision 97Da36521 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3772), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5422 delivered on May 12, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1610)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hanun, Attorneys Jung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yoon Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 99Na5693 delivered on May 12, 2000

Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part against the plaintiff 5,890,235 won and damages for delay shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division. The remaining grounds of appeal shall be dismissed.

1. Fact-finding by the court below

The facts acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence established by the court below are as follows.

A. The Plaintiff was an insurer of a passenger car No. 2744, 1 South-Nam, which is the owner of Parknam-ju (hereinafter “car”), and the Defendant was the insurer of the 7-Gu 2187, 7-2187, which is Nonparty 1’s ownership (hereinafter “car”).

B. At around 23:00 on September 18, 1993, Non-party 1 driven the above van and proceeded with the two-lane road in front of the original dong area in the city of bankruptcy in the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city.

C. At the time of the investigation agency which investigated a traffic accident, concluded that the car for Park Nam-ju driving was affected by the central line, and concluded that the accident occurred, and concluded the case on the ground that Park Nam-ju was not prosecuted on the ground that he did not have the right to institute a prosecution on the ground of death.

D. According to the results of the above investigation agency, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle in Parknam-gu, paid KRW 126,782,530 as damages to Nonparty 1 and his family members, who are victims, and paid KRW 3,000,000 as damages compensation for his own vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “self-motor vehicle”) to his family members, and KRW 7,960,000 as of February 20, 1995, respectively.

E. Meanwhile, Parknam-do’s bereaved family members were dissatisfied with the investigation results of the investigation agency and filed a lawsuit for damages against Nonparty 1 at the Changwon District Court by asserting that Nonparty 1’s son was deprived of the central line. In the lawsuit for damages, the judgment ordering Nonparty 1’s bereaved family members to compensate for damages by recognizing that Park Nam-gu’s passenger car was not over the central line but over the central line, and Nonparty 1’s son-do passenger was invaded by the central line. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 appealed and appealed, but all of the appeals were dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 25, 1998.

F. As the above judgment became final and conclusive, Nonparty 1 and his family members returned the damages that they received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, but did not have financial ability. However, as at the time of the accident, Nonparty 1’s son and son were subscribed to the Defendant’s automobile comprehensive insurance, it accordingly delegated all rights related to the above insurance claim and its receipt, including notification of the transfer of claims to the Plaintiff at the latest around September 1998, while transferring his son and son’s son’s son and son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

G. According to the standard terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance policy that Nonparty 1 subscribed to the Defendant, Nonparty 1 and his family members have against the Defendant, the insurance claims amounting to KRW 27,407,140 ( KRW 11,780,470, KRW 5,300, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 7,500, KRW 100, KRW 2,826,710, KRW 100, KRW 2,826, and KRW 710 of the insurance claims amount of Nonparty 1’s insurance claims.

H. Article 24(1) of the Defendant’s General Automobile Insurance Clause provides that in relation to a car accident, the insured may claim the payment of insurance money to the company when the insured died in case of the death insurance money, when the insured’s class and treatment expenses are determined in case of the injury insurance money, when the insured’s disability occurred in case of the latter disability insurance money, and the insured may claim the payment of insurance money to the company when the accident occurred in case of the vehicle damage.

2. The judgment of the court below

Based on the above facts, the court below rejected the part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1, 27,407,140 won, on the premise that the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff 27,407,140 won, barring any special circumstances (the court below held that the plaintiff paid 10,960,00 won to the plaintiff's bereaved family members of Park Nam-nam, thereby acquiring the right to claim reimbursement against the defendant of Park Nam-ju or the non-party 1 under the legal principles of subrogation. However, although the defendant did not appeal this part, the court below's decision was not within the scope of the judgment of this court) and the non-party 1's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's claim against the defendant 1 and the non-party 1's son's son's son's son's 97 years or 3 years' son's 198 days's son's son's son's right.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. A. An insurance claim is merely an abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, but it is possible to exercise the right from the time when the insurance accident became specific right. Thus, barring any special circumstance, in principle, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the insurance amount should be interpreted to run from the time when the insurance accident occurred, unless there is a special reason. However, even if the insurance accident is not known to the claimant without negligence because it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred or not the insurance accident occurred, the interpretation that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the insurance amount will run from the time when the insurance accident occurred. It is too harsh to the claimant, and it cannot be viewed to be consistent with the social justice and equity principle, as well as with the reason for the existence of the extinctive prescription system, in a case where it is difficult to confirm the occurrence of the insurance accident from an objective perspective, the right to claim the insurance amount will run when the claimant knew or could have known the insurance accident occurred (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da39822, Jul. 13, 1993; 20

However, examining the insurance claim due to the accident in this case, Article 23 (3) of the Automobile General Insurance Clause of the defendant's automobile General Insurance Clause of the defendant's automobile General Insurance Clause of the defendant's automobile General Insurance Clause of the defendant's automobile General Insurance Clause of the defendant's automobile accident which the non-party 1 subscribed to, where the defendant pays insurance money for the accident, he can receive compensation with the counter-party's personal injury from the amount which can be paid as death insurance money, injury insurance money, or after-paid disability insurance money, and only the amount which can be compensated for personal injury should be paid as insurance money after deducting the amount which can be paid as compensation for personal injury from the amount which can be paid as the other vehicle accident. Thus, if the vehicle which caused the central line as at the time of the accident in this case's investigation agency's initial conclusion, the non-party 1 was entitled to receive insurance money through the automobile insurance contract which the non-party 1 subscribed to the defendant's insurance claim, but the non-party 1 did not know the whole insurance money from the central investigation agency's insurance claim.

B. First of all, the fact-finding of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3’s insurance claim is justified and acceptable as seen above. In this fact-finding, Nonparty 1, at the time of the accident, should have been fully aware of the occurrence of the accident due to the infringement of the central line, and thus, he could have known the fact that the insurance claim against the Defendant was occurred. Meanwhile, according to the records, Nonparty 1 is not only the insured status but also the legal representative of Nonparty 3, 7 years old who was injured at the time of the accident. Thus, the insurance claim against the Defendant against Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 for the period of extinctive prescription from the date of the accident, on which Nonparty 1 became aware of the cause of the accident. Even if Nonparty 1 claims insurance money against the Defendant after the accident, the Defendant cannot be viewed as having rejected the insurance claim from the Plaintiff on the ground that Nonparty 1 received the insurance accident more than the amount of the self-accident, and thus, it can not be objectively confirmed that it was the central one (the other party to the accident).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the statute of limitations for the right to claim for the self-liability insurance against the defendant by the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 should proceed from the date of the above accident is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the initial date of the statute of limitations for the insurance claim

C. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below on the deceased non-party 2's right to claim for the self-loss insurance money against the defendant.

According to the records, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1's child at the time of the accident, was on board the ship at the time of the accident, died on September 19, 193, the day following the accident in this case (Records 221 pages). Article 23 (1) of the defendant's General Automobile Insurance Clause provides that the insured shall pay the amount of death insurance to his heir when the insured died as a direct result of the accident (Records 473 pages). The non-party 2's father as his father, who was the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 (Records 39 pages), shall belong to the non-party 1 and the non-party 4, who were their parents, respectively. Thus, the right to insurance due to the death in this case shall be deemed to have known from the beginning of the accident in this case, barring any special circumstance, that the non-party 1 was not aware of the cause of the accident in this case's civil case and thus, it cannot be concluded that the non-party 4 had been aware of the cause.

Nevertheless, the court below did not review the commencement date of the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim held by Nonparty 4 and determined that the whole insurance claim due to the death of Nonparty 2 will be extinctive prescription from the date of the accident. In so doing, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the commencement date of the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim and its claim due to the death of Nonparty 2, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on

4. Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, the part of the insurance money 5,890,235 won (11,780,470 x 1/2) and damages for delay payable to the non-party 4 due to the death of the non-party 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)