A. The purport of the provision of Article 682 of the Commercial Act concerning subrogation by insurers, and whether the provision of the accident insurance contract for others is applied (affirmative)

B. Whether a non-life insurance contract for another person is included in a third party under Article 682 of the Commercial Act (affirmative)

A. The reason for the provision of Article 682 of the Commercial Act regarding subrogation by the insurer is that the insured holding and exercising the right to claim against a third party even after receiving the insured amount from the insurer is the result of giving benefit to the insured beyond the compensatory damages, and it is also unreasonable for a third party, who is a liable for compensation, to be exempted from liability due to the receipt of the insurance money by the insured, and thus, it is unreasonable to remove it to vest in the insurer’s profit. The insurer’s subrogation provision also applies to the accident insurance contract for the benefit of others.

B. Non-life insurance contracts for the benefit of others are contracts for the benefit of others for which the benefit of others is the subject of insurance, and as a matter of course, it does not include or plan the benefit of the policyholder without any special agreement, and thus, the policyholder who is not the subject of the insurable interest is the party to the contract and is not the subject of the agreed insurance premium between the insurer and the insurer, but there is no legal reason to distinguish the policyholder from the third party in subrogation in light of the nature of the status and the intent of the subrogation provision of the insurer. Therefore, the non-life insurance contract

Article 682 of the Commercial Act

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na347 delivered on June 4, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the case of the accident insurance contract, if the damage was caused by the act of a third party, the insurer who paid the insured amount acquires the right of the third party (or the policyholder) of the insured (or the third party) within the limit of the amount paid by the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act. However, it is natural that the insurer subrogation provision applies to the accident insurance contract for the third party, because it is unreasonable that the insured's holding and exercising the right of subrogation against the third party after receiving the insured amount from the insurer would result in giving the benefit to the insured beyond the compensation for the loss, and it would be contrary to the non-life insurance system principle, and it would be unreasonable that the third party, who is the obligor liable to compensate, would be exempted from the liability due to the receipt of the insurance money by the insured.

Furthermore, the accident insurance contract for the health team and for the benefit of others is a contract for the benefit of others, which is the subject of insurance for the benefit of others, and it is not a matter of course to include or plan the benefit of the policyholder (in the absence of special agreement), so the subject of the benefit of insurance is the subject of the benefit of insurance, and it is not

Therefore, even though such policyholder is a contracting party between the insurer and is liable to pay the agreed premium, in light of the purport of the subrogation provision and the nature of the status that is not the subject of the insurable interest, it shall be deemed that there is no legal reason to treat the insurer separately from the policyholder and the third party who is not the policyholder. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the non-life insurance contract for another person is not naturally excluded from the category of the third party.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the defendant concluded three contracts of carriage with the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Electric Power Corporation") and caused damage to the above 75,975,742 won during the carriage, which caused damage to the above tensions during the carriage, and that the defendant concluded a transportation insurance contract with the plaintiff who became the policyholder and paid the above 3 insurance premium as the insured, and that the above accident (damage) occurred during the carriage, the plaintiff was subrogated to the right of compensation for damages held against the defendant before the payment of the insurance premium before the insurance premium to the insurer. In light of the nature of the transportation insurance contract, the court below stated that the insurer should not be deemed as the insurer of the third party stipulated in Article 682 of the Commercial Act and the insurer should not be deemed as the third party except the policyholder and the insured in light of the nature of the transportation insurance contract, and it is reasonable that the insurer should not be deemed as the insurer's liability for damages from the insurance contract for the same purpose as the insurer's insurance premium to the third party.

However, in light of the legislative intent of Article 682 of the Commercial Act as seen above, it shall not be deemed that the contents of the language and text necessarily excludes the policyholder for another person from the scope of a third party, and it shall also be the same even if it is viewed in light of the nature of the transportation insurance contract or the policy reasons recognizing subrogation

In addition, in this case, the circumstance that the insurance for himself/herself or for another person, or the insurance premium for transportation insurance or liability insurance is the same as that for the carrier's liability insurance is not liable if the carrier was involved in the liability insurance is a matter of determining the insurance premium or selecting the insurance premium, which is separate from the theory of whether the policyholder is included in a third party, which is the subject of subrogation by the insurer (in addition, if the insurer's subrogation against the policyholder is excluded, if the carrier concludes the insurance contract for the shipper's own, the premium rate should be higher than the case where the shipper concludes the insurance contract for the shipper's own, if the insurer concludes the insurance contract for the shipper's own).

Therefore, if a carrier simply aims at compensating for losses suffered by the shipper, it will only be required to enter into a transport insurance contract with the shipper as the insured, and if it aims at compensating for its own liability for damages, it will only be required to enter into liability insurance, and if it is intended to prepare for both cases, it should be done by attaching special terms and conditions of liability to compensate for losses (if it is added to insurance premium) as the shipper and the insurer as the insured. Therefore, the court below should determine whether the defendant is responsible by clarifying the purpose and circumstance of the contract, the source of the insurance premium, the contents of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant does not fall under a third party in subrogation of the insurer, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on subrogation of the insurer, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore there is a ground to point this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)