2018Da290924 Claims

A Stock Company

Law Firm Cheong branch, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

B School Safety Mutual Aid Association

1. Attorney Han-soo

2. The law firm (with limited liability);

Attorney Early Jin-hun, Justice Hwang Young-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Na17517 Decided October 31, 2018

December 24, 2019

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the third ground for appeal

A. Examining the reasoning and record of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The insured, the insured, his spouse, and unmarried children, etc., of C are insurers of liability insurance contracts with the purpose of insurance, and the Defendant is the School Safety Mutual Aid Association under the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter “School Safety Act”). (2) F is minor children of C, and F and G are all the beneficiaries of school safety mutual aid as students of the same elementary school, and F and G are all the beneficiaries of school safety mutual aid, and there was an accident that F is suitable for G in the mecket in the course of school sports hours.

(3) On August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,575,00 to the victim G as a liability insurer.

(4) On the premise that F, as the beneficiary, has the right to indemnity against the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking reimbursement against F, by subrogation, on the premise that F, has the right to indemnity against the Defendant.

B. The court below accepted the Plaintiff’s claim by deeming that the perpetrator’s right to indemnity against the Defendant is the subject of the insurer’s subrogation on the premise that the perpetrator’s insured person, who caused school safety accident, and the victim, who is the beneficiary of school safety mutual aid, is liable for damages, and the final obligor between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who is the Mutual Aid Association for School Safety, the perpetrator, and the Defendant, was the subject of the insurer’s subrogation. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult.

(1) If the beneficiary who is the perpetrator causes a school safety accident due to the lapse of the accident, the School Safety Mutual Aid Association is ultimately liable for damages between the perpetrator and the beneficiary who is the school safety mutual aid association within the scope of the amount of the mutual aid benefit. Accordingly, if the beneficiary who is the perpetrator compensates the victim first, the amount equivalent to the mutual aid benefit can be claimed by the School Safety Mutual Aid Association. However, the perpetrator’s liability insurer is ultimately liable for damages without relation to whether the accident occurred due to the lapse of the accident. Accordingly, in the event the beneficiary who is the perpetrator causes a school safety accident due to the lapse of the accident, the School Safety Mutual Aid Association may exercise the beneficiary’s direct right to claim the insurance proceeds from the beneficiary who is the perpetrator’s liability insurer after paying the mutual aid benefit, but the perpetrator’s liability insurer, even if paying the insurance proceeds to the victim first, cannot be claimed by the School Safety Mutual Aid Association, and cannot exercise the beneficiary’s right to indemnity or the right to claim the mutual aid benefits from the beneficiary by subrogation (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da287010, Dec. 13

(2) Examining the aforementioned facts in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, in the event that the perpetrator causes a school safety accident due to the lapse of time, the Plaintiff is ultimately liable as the liability insurer of the beneficiary who is the perpetrator. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot exercise its right to indemnity against the Defendant, or exercise its right to indemnity against the Defendant, or by subrogation of the beneficiary’s F’s right to indemnity or G’

(3) Nevertheless, the court below accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the erroneous premise that the perpetrator’s liability insurer and the school safety mutual aid association are the final liability insurer’s liability under the erroneous premise that the perpetrator’s liability insurer is the School Safety Mutual Aid Association. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the indemnity relationship between the insurer and the school safety mutual aid association under the School Safety Act and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that 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.

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Lee Jae-hwan