logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.29.선고 2016다42350 판결
구상금
Cases

2016Da42350 Claims

Plaintiff, Appellee

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Defendant Appellant

State Fire & Marine Insurance Corporation

The judgment below

Busan District Court Decision 2015Na17774 Decided September 8, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

December 29, 2016

Text

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part of 6,965,484 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake shall be liable to compensate for the damage if he/she has killed or injured another person due to the operation thereof (Article 3), and a motor vehicle owner shall be liable to compensate for the damage if he/she has killed or injured another person due to the operation thereof (Article 5(1)).

Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25149, Feb. 5, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that the amount of insurance money or mutual aid money for liability insurance or mutual aid (hereinafter “liability insurance money”) to be purchased by a motor vehicle owner under Article 5(1) of the Act; (1) In the case of an injury, the amount of damages incurred to the victim within the extent of the amount prescribed in attached Table 1 (Article 3(1)2; 2) cannot be expected to have any further treatment after the treatment of the injury; and (3) in the event of an injury due to the fixed symptoms, the amount of damages suffered to the victim within the scope of the amount prescribed in attached Table 2 (Article 3(1)3); (1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the amount of damages calculated by adding up the amount prescribed in Article 3(1)2 and Article 3(2)3 to the injured person’s liability insurance money if two or more causes arise due to the same accident.

It is reasonable to interpret the meaning that the aggregate of liability insurance proceeds from injury calculated and liability insurance proceeds from a subsequent disability calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)3 shall be paid as liability insurance proceeds (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67177, Oct. 30, 2014).

2. On June 25, 201, the lower court found the following facts as stated in its reasoning: (a) the co-defendant A driving a vehicle covered by the Defendant’s liability insurance policy on June 25, 201; (b) caused injury to D, who is the driver; (c) the injury grade of D as set out in the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree, is class 8; and (d) the injury grade of D, as set out in the attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree, is class 12; and (b) the injury grade of D, as set out in the attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree, is class 12,50,00; and (c) the amount of the liability insurance premium is class 13,970,689 (treatment cost 5,613,750 won + passive damage 7,56,939 won + KRW 80,000; and (d) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s insurance money and damages for delay 13950,397,97,3950.

3. However, in light of the foregoing legal principles, the lower court should have calculated the liability insurance amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by deducting KRW 13,970,689 from the insurance amount that the Plaintiff paid to D, the amount of damages caused by injury and the amount of damages caused by a chronic disability, within the scope of KRW 2,400,000 from the maximum amount of the liability insurance amount caused by injury, and the maximum amount of the liability insurance amount caused by the injury, within the scope of KRW 12,50,000 from the total amount of the liability insurance amount already paid to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that KRW 10,399,639, which is to be paid by the Plaintiff to D, is KRW 14,900,00 on the ground that the sum totaling KRW 2,400,000 and KRW 12,500,000 on the liability insurance amount due to an injury and the ceiling of liability insurance amount due to a subsequent disability is within the scope of KRW 14,90,00,00. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of liability insurance amount under Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be reversed. Since the defendant appealed only against the 6,965,484 won and damages for delay, the scope of reversal is limited to the part of the appeal by the defendant.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judges

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Park Jae-hee in charge

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jae-in

arrow