[1] The meaning of "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court is made" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

[2] The case where the Supreme Court can ex officio determine ex officio a mistake in the application of the interpretation of the substantive law even where the requirements of "when the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the precedents" that may be the grounds for appeal against small claims are not satisfied

[3] The scope of "third party" under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, and whether the liability insurer who is directly liable for damage to the victim under Article 9 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act is included in the above third party (affirmative)

[1] "When the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of the statutes applicable to a specific case, and it does not constitute a ground for violation of the law such as simple misapprehension of legal principles or a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing.

[2] Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes on the grounds that it is small claims, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes, and where there is such special circumstance, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court" which can be the ground of appeal for the small claims, it shall be deemed that the decision may be made ex officio on the error in applying the interpretation

[3] The third party of Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act refers to the Corporation that provided insurance benefits for the accident in question and the insured who received insurance benefits for the accident in reality and persons other than those who are in health insurance relationship with the victim, and the third party shall be deemed to include not only the victim directly, but also the person who is liable for the act of the perpetrator in question under the law or the contract. The third party shall be deemed to include the person who is liable for the damage under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. In a case where the liability of the perpetrator of the traffic accident occurs against the victim under Article 9 of the same Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, the right of direct claim against the liability insurer recognized as the victim under Article 724 (1) of the same Act is a right separate from the right of claim against the tortfeasor. Thus, the insurer liable for direct damage to the victim under Article 9 (1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act includes the third party regardless of whether the perpetrator falls under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act.

[1] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act / [2] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act / [3] Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, Articles 3 and 9 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da51714 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 393), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26517 delivered on October 13, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52394 Delivered on January 5, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da6979, 6986 Delivered on May 13, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 964)

National Health Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys Gyeong-Jon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Shindong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2002Na10996 delivered on December 4, 2002

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

1. The Supreme Court Decision 93Da48373 delivered on May 12, 1995 and Decision 94Da36698 delivered on July 14, 1995, which held that the Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, which is applicable to this case, is not clear that the Supreme Court's decision was not made on the interpretation of Article 53 (1) of the Act, which is applicable to this case. The Supreme Court Decision 2000Da9116 delivered on June 23, 2000, which is not appropriate to be invoked in this case as a different case, cannot be deemed to conflict with the above decision, and the remaining grounds for appeal are merely because the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below, and thus, the ground for appeal in the remaining grounds for appeal does not constitute one of the grounds for appeal.

2. According to Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, a final appeal may be filed against small claims only when the determination of whether or not the law, order, rule or disposition has been violated or the Supreme Court has rendered a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents. "When the decision has been made contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents" refers to an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decisions as to the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case, and the grounds for the violation of statutes, such as simple misapprehension of legal principles or the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete deliberation, do not constitute such a violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da26517, Oct. 13, 200; 200Da52394, Jan. 5, 2001).

However, in the absence of a precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case in a small amount case, in the absence of such precedents, a number of small amount of cases, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there are cases where the Supreme Court terminates the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount of cases, it would be likely that the legal safety of the people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court" which can be the ground for appeal for the small amount of cases, it shall be deemed that the error in the application of the interpretation

In this case, there is no precedent of the Supreme Court as to whether the liability insurer who is directly liable for damage to the victim under Article 9(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is included in a third party under Article 53(1) of the National Health Insurance Act. According to the records, in the situation where the lower court's decisions concerning the interpretation of Article 53(1) of the National Health Insurance Act are different, the same issue is pending in the majority of lower courts, and since the case is a small amount of the case, it can be known that there is a circumstance in which the lower court's rulings are reached against each other in the final appeal court. Accordingly, the lower court's decision of this case is ex officio as to the interpretation of Article 53(1) of

The third party of Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act refers to the Corporation that provided insurance benefits due to the accident in question and the insured who actually received insurance benefits and persons other than those in health insurance relationship with the victim, and the third party shall be deemed to include not only the perpetrator directly against the victim but also the person who is liable to compensate for the offender's act by law or contract. The third party shall be deemed to include the person who is liable to compensate for the offender's act under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. The victim's direct right to the liability insurer recognized under Article 9 of the same Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act is a right separate from the right to claim damages against the perpetrator. Thus, the insurer who is liable to compensate directly against the victim under Article 9 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act includes the third party regardless of whether the perpetrator of the traffic accident falls under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that if the insured under automobile liability insurance is not a "third party" under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, he is also a "third party". In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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)