Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Yangyang, Attorneys Hong Sung-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 24, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 5, 2007 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation (hereinafter “Guarantee Business”) by the government pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Act”), and Defendant 2 took over the (motor vehicle number omitted) small vehicles owned by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “accident vehicle”) as a bond security around the beginning of 2005 and used without changing the registered name, and Defendant 1 is Defendant 2’s wife.

B. On October 5, 2006, Defendant 1 driven the said accident vehicle at around 11:20, and proceeded two-lanes of the two-lanes of the border road located in the Yellow-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do at a speed of 80 km from Busan to the west-do, Seoul, and due to the excessive operation of the steering gear, Defendant 1 caused Nonparty 1 (non-party to the judgment of the Supreme Court) who was on board the vehicle involved in the accident to shock the PEdrum of the right side to the front right side of the accident and stop the end in the direction of the two-lane, and caused the injury to his wife (non-party to the judgment).

C. However, as the instant accident vehicle did not subscribe to the automobile comprehensive insurance (including liability insurance), Defendant 1 filed a claim for payment of compensation with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff determined that the degree of Nonparty 1’s injury to Nonparty 1’s class 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc., and the degree of the harm caused by the aftermath fall under class 1 of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 2], and the corresponding compensation was paid to Nonparty 1, on May 10, 2007, for medical expenses to the Seoul Large Hospital where Nonparty 1 was hospitalized, and for Defendant 1, etc. on June 4, 2007. Defendant 1 returned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap 1 or 5 (including virtual numbers), the purpose of the entire pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim and pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Code or Article 3 of the Self-Support Act as a person who directly drives an accident vehicle, and the defendant 2 is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the non-party 1 due to the accident in this case pursuant to Article 3 of the Self-Support Act as a person who has the operating control over the accident vehicle and the operating profit. Since the plaintiff paid 100 million won to the non-party 1 in accordance with Article 26 of the Self-Support Act, the plaintiff asserts that the non-party 1 can exercise the right of the victim under Article 31 of the Self-Support Act and Article 682

The defendants asserted that even if the defendant was the victim at the time of claiming compensation for the guaranteed business to the plaintiff, the victim's family members did not have the right to indemnity if they were the victim's family members, and the defendants who are the victim's family members living together do not belong to the third party who is the object of the right to indemnity under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. Determination

(1) Defendants’ liability for damages

According to the above facts, Defendant 1 is a person who directly operates an accident vehicle, and Defendant 2 is an operator prescribed by the self-regulation and operation profit of the accident vehicle. Thus, Defendant 1 is liable for all damages caused by the accident of this case to Nonparty 1, the victim of each accident of this case.

(2) Whether the Defendants can be subrogated

Furthermore, this paper examines whether the plaintiff who paid the compensation for the guaranteed business to the defendant 1, etc., the agent of the non-party 1, can exercise the right to claim compensation against the defendants who are liable for compensation in accordance with Article 31 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

If the victim acquires a right to claim compensation against relatives living together, it is anticipated that the victim would be left alone without exercising his/her right with his/her intention (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da32547, Sept. 6, 2002, etc.). The Guarantee Business is a kind of social security system that collects a certain amount of the liability insurance premium paid by a motor vehicle owner as a contribution from the Government and compensates losses to the victim who is not compensated even if he/she is involved in traffic accident, within the limit of the personal compensation I pursuant to the Guarantee Act. One of the legislative intent of Article 31 of the Guarantee of Labor Act, which is the basis for the plaintiff's subrogation of the victim's right to claim compensation, is to prevent the second interest of the victim. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the victim is the relative living together with the victim, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize subrogation. If the victim grants the right to claim compensation to the victim's relatives living together with the victim, the victim's subrogation can not be seen as the same result as the guaranteed business.

(3) Whether Defendant 1 recognized the duty of compensation

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant 1 paid 20 million won to the plaintiff on June 7, 2007 and recognized his liability for compensation. However, if the return of the defendant 1-20 million won to the plaintiff on June 7, 2007 can be deemed as ratification of the liability for compensation, the defendant 1's liability for compensation has been recognized, and the defendant 1 should have returned 20 million won as part of it while recognizing it. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claim

Justices Kim Jin-chul