[1] The purpose of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and in a case where one tortfeasor runs away from an automobile accident caused by joint tort, but the other tortfeasor is clear, whether the victim may claim compensation for damage to the guaranteed business operator for the above business (negative)

[2] In a case where a motor vehicle accident compensation guarantee business operator did not know that it is not a guarantee business, and paid compensation to the victim, whether the perpetrator can claim the return of unjust enrichment against the liability insurance business operator (negative)

[1] The main purpose of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business under Article 26 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is to compensate for the damage of the victim who died or was injured due to an accident caused by the operation of an automobile without the identity of the owner of the automobile, or to compensate for the damage within the limit of liability insurance. Thus, in the case of an accident caused by a joint tort, it is to supplement the automobile liability insurance system legally enforced for the purpose of protecting the victim of a traffic accident caused by a motor vehicle without the identity of the owner of a motor vehicle. Thus, even if one tortfeasor is liable to operate a vehicle under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in the case of an accident caused by a joint tort, if the victim is able to receive damages from the liability insurance that the other tortfeasor is clearly admitted if the other tortfeasor is obvious, the claim against the victim is not accepted. This is also true if the insurer who concluded the liability insurance contract with the motor vehicle of the other tortfeasor as the insured motor vehicle of the victim refuses the payment of damages for the reason that the victim is the actual operator of the vehicle.

[2] In a case where one of multiple perpetrators runs away, but the other perpetrator is clear, a motor vehicle accident is not subject to the Guarantee Business of Automobile Accident Compensation, and the Guarantee Business operator pays compensation to the victim without knowing it, the said Guarantee Business operator can seek the return of the compensation to the victim, and in a case where the victim has a duty to return unjust enrichment to the Guarantee Business operator, the claim for the payment of the insurance proceeds against the perpetrator's liability insurance continues to exist, so the Guarantee Business operator's liability insurer's profit is not the same as the above payment of compensation. Therefore, the Guarantee Business operator cannot make a claim for return

[1] Articles 3 and 26 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 26 (1) 1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35113 decided Apr. 15, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 736) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da3632 decided Mar. 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1551)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Changwon, Attorney Yellow-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Interesting State Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Bilateral Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Han-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 2006Na9440 decided July 6, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that the defendant, the insurer of the first vehicle of this case, is liable to compensate the non-party 2 for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the operator of the vehicle of this case (the second vehicle of this case cannot be identified as the owner), and that the plaintiff, the insurer entrusted with the business of compensation pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter "the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act") paid the non-party 1 a sum of KRW 38,877,560 to the compensation for the damages caused by the accident of this case, thereby releasing the defendant from the liability for compensation against the non-party 1, and this constitutes a case where the defendant gains profits from the plaintiff's withdrawal without any legal ground, and thus, the defendant is liable to return the above compensation amount to the plaintiff.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The main purpose of the Guarantee Business of Automobile Accident Compensation (hereinafter “Guarantee Business”) stipulated under Article 26 of the Act is to compensate within the limit of liability insurance for the damage of the victim who died or was injured due to an accident caused by the operation of an automobile without the identity of the owner of the automobile, and to supplement the system of automobile liability insurance, which is legally enforced for the purpose of protecting the victim of a traffic accident caused by a motor vehicle without the identity of the owner of the vehicle. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35113, Apr. 15, 2005) In the case of an accident caused by a joint tort, even if one tortfeasor runs away, if the other tortfeasor is able to be compensated by the victim from the liability insurance policy, if the other tortfeasor is clearly identified, the other tortfeasor’s claim against the Guarantee Business operator is not recognized, and even if the defendant, who is the insurer who entered into an insurance contract with the first motor vehicle of this case, is the Defendant’s refusal to pay the damage compensation liability for the non-party 1 as against the victim.

In addition, even though the accident of this case does not fall under the object of the guaranteed business, the plaintiff was not aware of it and paid compensation to the victim, so the victim of this case can claim the return thereof to the victim, and as long as the victim of this case has a duty to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, the claim for the payment of insurance proceeds against the defendant still exists (the extinction of the above claim for the payment of insurance proceeds due to the prescription is separate issue). Therefore, the defendant did not have profit with the above payment of the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant is without reason (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3

3. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to return of unjust enrichment, 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 Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)