(a) Whether a victim's direct right to claim against an insurance company even if an insurance accident occurred prior to the enforcement date of the Commercial Act;

B. Legal nature of a victim's direct right to claim against the insurer under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act

A. The main text of Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act provides that "a third party may claim for direct compensation to the insurer for damage caused by an accident attributable to the insured, within the limit of the insured amount." Since January 1, 1993, the enforcement date of the amended Commercial Act, the victim of the traffic accident can claim for direct compensation to the insurance company which has acquired automobile insurance for the her her her 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''' 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''.

B. The legal nature of the victim’s right of direct action recognized under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim is the right to compensate for damages against the insurer.

(a) Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, Article 2(1)(b) of the Addenda of the Commercial Act ( December 31, 1991);

B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da2530 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1665) 94Da6819 delivered on May 27, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1823)

Attorney Lee Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Samsung Fire & Marine Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na3935 delivered on September 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the traffic accident of this case solely occurred by the negligence of the deceased non-party 1, the driver of the car of this case, and that there was no negligence on the non-party 1, the driver of the car of this case 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 4 tons of the 1st of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 50th of the 5th of the 50th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2.

(2) The main text of Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991) provides that "a third party may directly claim compensation to the insurer for damage caused by an accident attributable to the insured, within the limit of the insured amount." From January 1, 1993, the enforcement date of the amended Commercial Act, the traffic accident victim can directly claim compensation to the insurer who purchased automobile insurance for the victim. According to the main text of Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the amended Commercial Act, the provisions of insurance convenience under the amended Commercial Act shall also apply to insurance contracts established prior to the enforcement of the amended Commercial Act. Thus, even if a traffic accident, which is an insurance accident, has occurred prior to the enforcement of the amended Commercial Act, the victim may directly claim compensation to the insurer who acquired automobile insurance, and the provisions of the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the amended Commercial Act do not interfere with the above interpretation.

In addition, the legal nature of the victim's direct right to claim compensation pursuant to Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Code is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured's obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim's right to claim compensation against the insurer (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819 delivered on May 27, 1994).

The court below held that the defendant, who is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the non-party member special transportation company and the non-party 1 and the plaintiffs due to the traffic accident in this case, is liable for all damages suffered by the deceased non-party 1 and the plaintiffs. Such judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lawsuit theory

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)