[1] The starting point for the statute of limitations of insurance claims

[2] The case holding that even if the insurance clause or Article 658 of the Commercial Act provides a grace period for the payment of insurance money, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance money shall proceed from the time the insurance accident occurred and shall not be deemed to proceed from the day following the expiration

[3] In a case where an obligee actively claims a right by responding to a suit as a defendant and such claim is accepted, whether the cause for interruption of prescription constitutes a judicial claim (affirmative), and in such a case, the point at which interruption of prescription

[1] A claim for insurance benefits 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 statute of limitations of the claim for insurance benefits shall be interpreted to run from the time when the insurance accident occurred, unless there are special circumstances. 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, it cannot be interpreted that the statute of limitations of the claim for insurance benefits will run from the time when the insurance accident occurred. It is too harsh to the claimant for insurance benefits, and it is not 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, in a case where it is objectively difficult to confirm the occurrence of the insurance

[2] The case holding that even if the insurance clause or Article 658 of the Commercial Act provides a grace period for the payment of insurance money, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance money shall proceed from the time the insurance accident occurred, and shall not be deemed to proceed from the day after the grace

[3] A judicial claim under Article 168 subparag. 1 and Article 170(1) of the Civil Act refers to a case where the right holder claims a right which is a subject matter of lawsuit as the defendant in the form of a lawsuit by the plaintiff as the right holder, but in contrast, it is reasonable to interpret that the lawsuit is actively asserted a right and the lawsuit is accepted by the plaintiff as the defendant with respect to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit. In addition, it is reasonable to regard that the interruption of prescription due to the response act takes place when the defendant actually responded to the lawsuit by exercising his/her right.

[1] Article 62 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 658 and 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 168 subparag. 1 and 170 of the Civil Act

[1] 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 200Da31168 delivered on April 27, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1238), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da61753 Delivered on December 28, 2001 (Gong202Sang, 368) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da4781 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994, 1994; 37Da16397 delivered on April 16, 197) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 197Da196379 delivered on December 16, 1997

El District Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Jae-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na25047, 25054 decided September 15, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The right to claim insurance money is only abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, and its right can be exercised from the time when the insurance accident became specific right. Thus, barring any special circumstance, in principle, the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance money should commence from the time the insurance accident occurred. However, even in a case where it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred without negligence, and it is impossible for the holder of the right to claim insurance money to know of the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence, construing that the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance money will run from the time the insurance accident occurred. It is too harsh to the holder of the right to claim insurance money, and it is not consistent with the concept of social justice and equity, nor does it conform to the reason for the existence of the statute of limitations. Thus, if it is impossible to confirm the occurrence of the insurance accident from the objective perspective, it is interpreted that the right to claim the insurance amount will run from the time when the holder of the right to claim the insurance accident knew or could have known the occurrence of the insurance accident (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da3168, Apr. 27, 2001).

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The right to claim insurance money is only abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, but it can be exercised from the time when the specific right is determined as the right due to the occurrence of the insurance accident. Thus, barring any special circumstance, in principle, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance money should be interpreted to run from the time the insurance accident occurred. Thus, Article 27 (1) of the Insurance Clause of this case provides that "the company shall issue the receipt when it receives the documents claiming insurance money under Article 22 of the Insurance Clause of this case, and shall pay them within three days from the date of receipt of the documents." Article 658 (Payment of Insurance Amount) of the Commercial Act provides that "the insurer shall pay the insurance amount within the agreed period if there is no agreed period for the payment of the insurance amount, and if there is no agreed period for the contract, the insurer shall determine the insurance amount to be paid without delay after receiving the notice under Article 657 (1) of this Act and shall pay the insurance amount to the insured or the beneficiary within ten days from the fixed date," and thus, contrary to the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 168 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code and Article 170 (1) of the Civil Code stipulate a judicial claim as one of the causes for interruption of prescription refers to the case where a right holder claims a prescription as the defendant in the form of a lawsuit, which is the subject of a lawsuit by the plaintiff. However, in contrast, it is reasonable to interpret that the case where a person who claims prescription as the plaintiff files a lawsuit as the plaintiff and actively claims the right in the lawsuit and accepts it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da47861 delivered on December 21, 1993) is included in the same case (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da47861 delivered on December 21, 1993). In addition, it is reasonable to view that the interruption of prescription caused by the act of responding to a lawsuit takes effect

On the contrary, the argument in the grounds of appeal, which is the purport that the interruption of prescription due to the defendant's act of responding to an insurance contract becomes retroactively effective when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant that there is no insurance claim against the defendant based on the insurance contract.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Defendant: (a) filed a claim for insurance money with required documents in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the terms and conditions within two years from the date of occurrence of an accident; and (b) notified the Plaintiff to determine whether to pay insurance money by requesting an investigation as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes an insured incident (the grounds for payment of insurance money); (c) notified the Plaintiff that it is possible to file an objection at the site level on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be paid insurance money because it was not determined whether the Plaintiff’s claim for the provisional payment of insurance money was an insured incident; (d) the Defendant filed a petition for dispute mediation with the Financial Supervisory Service to bring an action for the extension of the obligation of this case upon the completion of the deliberation, which caused the Plaintiff’s failure or significant difficulty in exercising the right by the Plaintiff as the obligee before the expiration of the prescription period; or (e) acted to believe that such measures are unnecessary; or (e) there were special circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s failure to invoke the prescription period after the expiration of the prescription period. Therefore, the grounds of appeal on the premise that the ground of appeal can also be acceptable.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)