Whether a guarantee insurance company has a duty under the good faith to notify without delay the fact of acquiring a right to indemnity against a policyholder's heir and guarantor to prevent the spread of delayed damage.

The guarantor of the obligation to reimburse in a guarantee insurance contract is not at a position to immediately know the fact that the insurer paid the insurance proceeds to the insured. Therefore, the surety insurance company is obligated to notify the guarantor of the fact that it acquired the right to indemnity against the policyholder by paying the insurance proceeds to the insured without delay and to prevent the expansion of delayed damage. However, if the policyholder dies, it cannot be deemed that the heir, who is the general successor, is obliged to notify the fact of the payment of the insurance proceeds without delay

Articles 2 and 396 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation

Jeon Dong-ho et al. and two others

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant Park Jong-chul shall pay 11,862,672 won per annum from January 28, 1989 to November 30, 1991; 20% per annum from the next day to February 28, 1993; 20% per annum from the next day to March 31, 1993; and 17% per annum from the next day to the full payment date; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of March 31, 1993; 30% per annum; and 40% per annum from the above amounts, each of the above amounts described in paragraph (2) shall be paid jointly and severally with Defendant Lee Dong-ho and the same with the same ship executor;

B. Defendant Ear-dong and Ear-ri shall pay 2,372,534 won and 19 percent per annum from January 28, 1989 to November 30, 1991, 20 percent per annum from the next day to February 28, 1993, 20 percent per annum from the next day to March 31, 193, and 17 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 1-2, evidence Nos. 2-1, 3-2, evidence Nos. 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 6.

A. On December 24, 1987, Nonparty 1 entered into an installment sales guarantee insurance contract between the Plaintiff and Nonparty Hyundai Motor Corporation, the insurance amount of KRW 16,500,00, and the insurance period of KRW 17,190 between November 28, 1987 and November 27, 1990, and received the same guaranty insurance policy from the Plaintiff Company, and provided the said guaranty insurance policy as security by purchasing 2.0 automobiles from Nonparty Hyundai Motor Corporation as one installment.

B. The content of the above Guarantee Insurance Contract is that if the above applicant delays the repayment of installments and loses the benefit of time, the plaintiff company shall pay the remaining installments in subrogation to the above non-party company within the scope of the above insurance amount. The above applicant shall pay the insurance money subrogated by the plaintiff company to the plaintiff company and damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate of the Financial Group Agreement from the day following the date of subrogated payment

C. On the other hand, the defendant Park Jong-chul guaranteed the above defendant's obligation under the above guarantee insurance contract against the plaintiff company.

D. After that, the above applicant died on August 16, 198, and delayed the repayment of the above installment, the plaintiff company subrogated to the above non-party company on January 27, 1989 in accordance with the above guarantee insurance contract by subrogation as insurance money of KRW 11,862,672, which is the remaining installment of the date.

E. As the heir of the above person’s background, he has the same type of punishment as the Defendant’s Madong-ho, the same jury, the non-party’s Maddong-ho, the non-party’s Maddong-ho, and the Maddong-ho.

F. The overdue interest rate under the Financial Group Agreement is 19% per annum from January 28, 1989 to November 30, 1991, the following day after the payment date of the above insurance money of the Plaintiff Company; 21% per annum from the next day to February 28, 193; 20% per annum from the next day to March 31, 193; and 17% per annum from the next day to the closing date of the argument in this case.

2. According to the above facts, Defendant Park Jong-chul is a joint and several surety of the applicant of the non-party background, and is obligated to pay the plaintiff company the full amount of the indemnity amount, namely, 11,862,672, and 672 won of the insurance amount subrogated by the plaintiff company, and damages for delay pursuant to the above interest rate from the day after the above subrogation payment date to the date after full payment is made. Defendant Lee Dong-dong and the same owner of the non-party background are the successors of the non-party background, and they are 2,372,534 won (each 11,862,672 won x 1/5 x 1/5), and damages for delay pursuant to the above interest rate from the day following the above subrogation payment date to the date of the above subrogation payment, and each of the above parties' joint and several obligations with Defendant Park Jong-dong and each of the above parties' obligations with Defendant Lee Dong-dong.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

First of all, the defendant Park Jong-ho has used his seal impression of the defendant Park Jong-ho without permission and concluded the above joint and several sureties contract. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the above defense is without merit.

In other words, the defendants defense that the five-year extinctive prescription has expired against the claim for reimbursement of this case. However, the claim for reimbursement against the defendants of the plaintiff company was made on January 28, 1989 when the plaintiff company paid insurance money, and it is clear in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on January 25, 1994 before the five-year lapse from the time. Thus, the defendants' defense is not justified.

In addition, when the plaintiff company paid insurance money to the above non-party company and acquired the right to indemnity against the above deceased party, the plaintiff company is obligated under the principle of trust and good faith to prevent the spread of delayed damage by notifying the above deceased's heir's right to indemnity without delay to the defendant Lee Dong-ho and the defendant Park Jong-ok, a joint guarantor of the above deceased and notify the deceased of the occurrence of obligation to reimburse without delay and inform him of the occurrence of obligation to reimburse. However, the plaintiff company neglected such notification and filed the lawsuit in this case immediately before the above right to indemnity expires, and the defendants knew of the payment of the insurance money of the plaintiff company, and the delay damages against the above indemnity amount was more than twice the principal amount. Thus, the plaintiff company's defense that the above negligence should be taken into account in determining the number of damages for delay.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to expect that the insurer paid insurance money to the heir of the policyholder after the lapse of a certain period of time until the policyholder's death is confirmed, and thus, the insurer cannot be deemed to have a duty under the good faith principle to separately notify the policyholder of the fact that the insurance money is paid to the policyholder. In the case of the policyholder's death, the heir succeeds to the above status of the deceased (the heir is the way to escape from the liability of the insurance contract to succeed through the waiver of inheritance or qualified acceptance of inheritance under the Civil Act after sufficiently investigating the policyholder's property or liability, and taking into account the insurer's property or liability, the heir succeeds to the status of the deceased (the heir is the way to escape from the liability of the insurance contract to succeed through the waiver of inheritance or qualified acceptance of inheritance under the Civil Act), and the insurer is not notified of the policyholder's death, so it is difficult to expect the insurer to immediately pay the insurance money to the heir of the policyholder without delay. In light of the above legal principles and circumstances, it cannot be viewed that the insurer's duty to notify the insurer of the above insurance without delay.

Next, in relation to the relationship between the plaintiff company and the above deceased's guarantor, and the guarantor of the guaranteed insurance contract is not at a position to immediately know the non-performance of the guaranteed insurance policyholder, or the insurer's payment of insurance money. Thus, when the insurer acquires the right to indemnity against the policyholder by paying insurance money to the insured, the insurer is obligated under the principle of good faith to prevent the expansion of delayed damage by notifying the guarantor of the occurrence of the obligation to reimbursement without delay. If delayed damage is expanded due to negligence of the insurer, the insurer's negligence is deemed to be concurrent with the expansion of the damage. Thus, in full view of the arguments in this case, the insurer's return to this case, after examining the above case, Gap evidence No. 7, and the purport of oral argument, the plaintiff company paid the above insurance money on January 27, 1989, and the insurer did not notify the above insurance money to the guarantor without delay and urge the defendant 1 to pay the above insurance money on July 31, 1989.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon-han