In accordance with Article 30 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, whether the right to claim compensation from the victim of a traffic accident by a motor vehicle or a non-insurance motor vehicle constitutes a right to claim compensation against the third party under Article 53 (1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (negative)

Article 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Article 53(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201) (see current Article 58(1))

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da62477 Decided April 15, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da27452 Decided August 20, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1538) Supreme Court Decision 2012Da200394 Decided December 13, 2012 (Gong2013Sang, 152)

National Health Insurance Corporation

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Lee branch, Attorney Cheong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Na3925 decided August 16, 2012

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purpose, purpose, character, etc. of the guaranteed business under Article 30 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Act”), the right to claim compensation from the guaranteed business owned by the victim pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Act is a claim specifically recognized by the Act for the relief of the victim, and cannot be deemed as a right to claim compensation against a third party under Article 53(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “National Health Insurance Act”) (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da200394, Dec. 13, 2012).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant, who was entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation by the government pursuant to the Act, falls under a third party under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, and the right to claim compensation from the guaranteed business owned by the victim pursuant to Article 30 (1) of the Act, includes the right to claim compensation under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act. On the premise of this, the court below held that the plaintiff acquired the right to claim compensation against the defendant within its scope by paying part of the medical expenses incurred

However, as seen earlier, the Supreme Court's decision that the right to claim compensation from the guaranteed business that the victim had pursuant to Article 30 (1) of the Act does not constitute the right to claim compensation against the third party under Article 53 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, and on different premise, recognized the defendant's obligation to pay the amount of compensation on a different premise, there is a ground for appeal under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)