(a) In case of liability insurance, a third party who is a victim may directly claim the insurer for the damage compensation;

(b) The case holding that if the total amount of damage to be compensated by the victim is less than the amount of insurance proceeds when the amount of insurance proceeds is less than the amount of insurance proceeds, even though the total amount of damage to be compensated by the victim is less than the amount of insurance proceeds due to comparative negligence, the insurer cannot be deemed to have incurred any loss because the insurer paid the insurance proceeds equivalent

(a) The case where a third party who is the injured party can claim a direct damage compensation against the insurer with respect to the liability insurance shall be limited to the case where Article 725 (b) of the Commercial Act provides the same as Article 12 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, or it is recognized in the terms and conditions of an insurance contract concluded between the parties to the insurance; and

B. The case holding that if the total amount of damage to be compensated by the victim is less than the amount of insurance proceeds when the amount of insurance proceeds is less than the amount of insurance proceeds, even though the total amount of damage to be compensated by the victim is less than the amount of insurance proceeds due to comparative negligence, the insurer cannot be deemed to have incurred any loss by paying the insurance proceeds equivalent to the amount of the

A. Articles 724(2) and 725 of the Commercial Act, and Article 12 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da874 Decided January 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 13579) (Gong136, Dec. 13, 1988)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and three defendants' attorneys-at-law advice

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na38510 delivered on February 19, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 company of this case concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the non-party 1 company operating the above insurance business on April 10, 1987 with the non-party 2's (vehicle number 1 omitted) from October 24:0 of the same year to October 24:00 of the same year. Non-party 1, a driver of the non-party company, operated the above bus on June 16 22:00 of the same year, causing injury to the non-party 2, and caused death on November 20, 1988. The judgment of the court below acknowledged the non-party 2's damages claim against the non-party 3 company of this case on behalf of the non-party 2 on behalf of the non-party 3 company on behalf of the above non-party 1, 190, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's damages claim against the above non-party 1 and the non-party 9.

In addition, in this case where the plaintiff seeks the return of the remaining amount after deducting KRW 1,380,00, which was offset against the above judgment, from the payment of the above medical expenses, as unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to medical expenses in relation to the insurance accident to the non-party company in accordance with Part II (3) (1) of the Standard for Payment of Insurance Money for Motor Vehicle General Insurance (hereinafter referred to as "The Standard Clause for Motor Vehicle General Insurance"). Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the damages to the non-party company in full. In addition, Article 12 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that the victim may claim the insurer for the payment of the insurance money within the limit of the liability insurance amount, and Article 12 (1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that the victim shall be entitled to claim directly from the insurer within the limit of the liability insurance amount, and ultimately, the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay the damages to the deceased's heir, who is the plaintiff's heir or the plaintiff's heir.

2. The case where a third party who is the victim can directly claim damages against the insurer in this case falling under liability insurance under Article 719 of the Commercial Act that provides that the insured shall be liable for damages due to an accident during the insurance period shall be limited to the case where the contract terms of the insurance contract which is concluded between the parties to the insurance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3166, Dec. 13, 198). According to subparagraph 1, Paragraph 9, which provides that the insured shall be liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, because the insured shall be liable for damages to a third party due to an accident during the insurance period, the insured shall be liable for damages exceeding the amount of the insurance money paid by the insured under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which shall not be limited to the amount of the insurance money paid by the insured under the said standardized contract or the amount of the insurance money paid by the insured, which shall not be limited to the amount of the insurance money paid by the insured, which shall not be limited to the amount of the insurance money paid by the insured under the said standardized contract.

3. However, even if the Defendants did not have the right to directly claim the insurance proceeds against the Plaintiff and only the non-party company, the insured, has the right to directly claim the insurance proceeds against the Plaintiff, if the insurance proceeds for which the non-party company can claim payment against the Plaintiff are equivalent to the locational expenses, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff paid the above insurance proceeds equivalent to the medical expenses of the above deceased on behalf of the non-party company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants should be presumed to be without merit. Furthermore, it should be viewed as to whether the insurance proceeds to be paid by the Plaintiff are equivalent

In full view of the contents of paragraphs (9) and (16) of the above terms and conditions, and Part II (3) (1) of the Standards for the Payment of Insurance Proceeds of Motor Vehicle General Insurance Contract, the above terms and conditions are insurance money to be paid in the final and conclusive judgment without being bound to pay insurance proceeds in the case of personal compensation insurance. However, if insurance proceeds are paid without following the final and conclusive judgment, the amount of insurance money to be paid after deducting the amount of the insurance policyholder or the insured paid or payable as liability insurance from the total amount of the expenses incurred according to the above terms and conditions. According to the above criteria for the payment of insurance proceeds, only if the total amount of damages, such as active damages, passive damages, consolation money, etc., to be paid to the victim falls short of the insurance amount to be paid for the medical expenses, as in this case, the total amount of damages to be paid to the victim is less than the medical expenses to be paid to the non-party company, which is the insured, as well as at least the amount of the above insurance money to be paid to the non-party company.

4. Thus, the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the plaintiff paid the above amount of medical expenses and could not cause any loss to the plaintiff. The decision of the court below that the defendants had the right to directly claim insurance money against the plaintiff does not affect the conclusion of the judgment below. Thus, the decision of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles and the misapprehension of legal reasoning and the violation of law in the light of reasoning.

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 on the bench.