The scope of application of the insurer subrogation limitation doctrine in part of insurance for which the insured amount under the proviso of Article 682 of the Commercial Act does not reach the insurable value.

The proviso of Article 682 of the Commercial Act provides, “When the insurer has paid a part of the insured amount to be compensated, the insurer may exercise his/her right to the extent that does not harm the rights of the insured.” The above provision states, even if the insurer of a partial insurance that does not reach the insurable value pays the total amount of the insurance amount to the insured, if the insured’s claim against the third party remains, the insured shall be entitled to preferentially dispose of the remaining claims, and the insured shall be entitled to protect the insured by allowing the insured to dispose of the entire amount of the damage in preference to the insurer. Considering the purport of the protection of the insured, in the so-called partial insurance, the legal doctrine of subrogation limitation applies to the so-called partial insurance cannot be recovered even if the insured cannot be recovered even if the insured was paid the total amount of the insurance amount

Article 682 of the Commercial Act

Han Lan Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Southern, Attorneys Kim Jae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Gahap103951 decided June 25, 2013

February 6, 2014

The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal and incidental appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 129,253,526 won with 5% interest per annum from September 19, 2012 to the service date of the payment order of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: " July 6, 2012," among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the result of the fact inquiry to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance" is as follows: "the result of the fact inquiry to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance and the document forwarding to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance, which the plaintiff submitted at the court of first instance"; "the document forwarding result to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance" is as follows; "the document forwarding result to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance"; "the document forwarding result to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance"; "the document forwarding result to the chief of Ansan fire station in the court of Ansan fire station in the court of first instance"; "the ratio of negligence" of two and five of the two and the 12th of the 5th of

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, in the occurrence of the instant fire, the Plaintiff’s liability for the Defendant is limited pursuant to the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence, and that, in such a case, the amount of subrogation by the insurer should be treated differently from “(i) the amount of compensation for damages that the insured may claim against a third party - (ii) the amount of compensation for damages that the insured may claim commensurate with the fault - (iii) the total amount of the insured - the insurance amount paid by the insurer) to the insured to the extent of the amount of damages (ii) incurred to the insured.

Therefore, the proviso of Article 682 of the Commercial Act provides that “When an insurer has paid a part of the insurance amount to be compensated, the insurer may exercise its right to the extent that does not harm the rights of the insured.” The above provision states that even if the insurer of a partial insurance that does not reach the insurable value pays the total insurance amount to the insured, if the insurer of a partial insurance remains claims against the third party, the insured shall be entitled to preferentially dispose of the remaining claims, and the insured shall be entitled to protect the insured by allowing the insured to dispose of them in preference to the insurer. Considering the purport of the above protection. Considering the above, the legal principles on subrogation of the insurer in the so-called partial insurance as seen above, as seen above, are all applicable in cases where the insured cannot recover the entire amount of damage even if the insured was paid with the payment of the insurance amount, and there is a balance between the fault

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

B. The defendant did not reveal the cause of the instant fire, and the defendant fulfilled his duty of care. Even if the defendant's liability is recognized, there are many evidences among the damages claimed by the plaintiff, and the responsibility should be limited to less than 50%.

Therefore, it is based on the facts acknowledged earlier. The fire officer’s statement first arrived at the fire of this case for the purpose of extinguishing the fire of this case was presumed to have been launched from the fire of this case. Furthermore, considering the possibility of reuse by the fire of this case, the degree of damage caused by the fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s fire of this case’s case’s fire of this case’

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion against the above recognition as to the cause of the fire in this case, the amount of damages of the mother park, and the limitation of liability of the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just. The plaintiff's incidental appeal and the defendant's appeal are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges exhaustion fever (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul