Whether Article 3(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which provides for the method of calculating the liability insurance amount in the case of a disability inflicted on the injured person due to the same accident, should be interpreted to mean that the sum of the injury insurance amount calculated in accordance with Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Enforcement Decree and the subsequent disability insurance amount calculated in accordance with Article 3(1)3 of the same Decree shall be paid as

The former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9065, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “Act”) requires a motor vehicle owner to subscribe to liability insurance or liability mutual aid (hereinafter “liability insurance, etc.”) that imposes liability on the victim for the amount prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sep. 25, 2008; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) in cases where death or injury of another person due to the operation of a motor vehicle is caused by the motor vehicle. Since the Enforcement Decree has been revised several times, it is inconsistent with the purpose of increasing the maximum amount of liability insurance money such as liability insurance, etc. or mutual aid money (hereinafter “liability insurance money”) to enhance the protection of the victim through rationalization and appropriateness, it is not consistent with the purport of the liability insurance policy and the detailed provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which provides that the victim shall be held liable for damages due to the injury or injury sustained by the victim within the scope of the injury or injury amount determined by the lower court.

As such, considering the language and text of Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree as well as the aforementioned circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable to interpret Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree, which provides for the method of calculating liability insurance in the event that a person who suffers from a disability caused by the same accident, to the extent of the total sum of the maximum amount under Articles 3(1)2 and 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree, not the amount of damage inflicted on the victim, but the sum of the injury insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree and the subsequent disability insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree, to the effect that the total sum of the injury insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)3 of the

Articles 3 and 5(1) (see current Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9065, Mar. 28, 2008); Article 3(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sept. 25, 2008); Article 3(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (see current Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act); Article 3(3) (see current Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act); and Article 3(2)2 (see current Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act).

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

The Federation of National Passenger Transport Business Cooperatives (Law Firm Hongap, Attorney Na Byung-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Na14379 decided June 28, 2012

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part of the payment for 6,902,280 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Southern District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purpose of statutory interpretation is to find specific validity within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. As such, in the process of statutory interpretation, it is a principle to faithfully interpret the language and text used in the law as far as possible. Furthermore, a systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account legislative intent and purpose, history of enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes should be additionally mobilized so as to ensure a reasonable interpretation in response to the request for statutory interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035, Apr. 23, 2009).

Article 3 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9065, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a person who operates an automobile for himself/herself shall, in principle, be liable to compensate for damages if he/she dies or gets injured by another person due to his/her operation. Article 5(1) provides that a motor vehicle owner shall subscribe to liability insurance or liability mutual-aid (hereinafter “liability insurance, etc.”) that shall bear the responsibility for paying the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree to the victim in cases of the death or injury of another person due to the operation of the motor vehicle. Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21036, Sep. 25, 2008; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that the sum of damages caused by the injury to the victim [the sum of damages caused by the injury to the victim” as provided for in subparagraph 2 of the attached Table 3].

Meanwhile, in the event that a motor vehicle owner dies or is injured by another person due to the operation of a motor vehicle, the said motor vehicle owner is obliged to subscribe to liability insurance, etc. that is liable for the payment of the amount as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree, and the Enforcement Decree has been amended several times, increasing the maximum amount of liability insurance in order to enhance the protection of the victim through the realization, rationalization, and rationalization of liability insurance proceeds. However, the liability of a liability insurer for the payment of insurance proceeds under Articles 3 and 5(1) of the Act, as limited liability liability, is merely a liability for the payment of damages sustained by the victim within the limit of the prescribed amount due to the item of death, injury, and disability, as prescribed by the provisions of the Liability Insurance Policy and the Enforcement Decree, and is not a liability for all damages suffered by the victim due to a motor vehicle accident. In addition, the fact-finding court, based on all evidence, shall closely examine the damaged part or degree of injury suffered by the victim, the treatment period and its lapse, whether a subsequent disability occurred or at the time of the occurrence of disability, and shall not be deemed as inconsistent with the purport and scope of the following insurance proceeds.

As such, considering the language and text of Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree as well as the aforementioned circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable to interpret Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree, which provides for the method of calculating liability insurance in the event that a person who suffers from a disability caused by the same accident, to the effect that the sum of the injury insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree and the subsequent disability insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree should be paid as liability insurance proceeds not only to the extent of the total sum of the maximum amount under Article 3(1)2 and Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree, but also to the extent that the sum of the injury insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree and the subsequent disability insurance proceeds calculated pursuant to Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree, which provides for the method of calculating the amount to be paid where the injured person died due to the same accident (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16463, Jun. 30, 1999).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the victim’s injury grade due to the instant accident was as follows: (a) class 4 (the maximum amount of liability insurance KRW 9,000,00) of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 1]; (b) class 8 (the maximum amount of liability insurance KRW 30,000,000) of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 2]; (c) the victim’s injury grade due to the instant accident was assessed as class 8 (the maximum amount of liability insurance KRW 33,672,960; (d) the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages on the ground that the total amount of damages suffered by the victim after offsetting the negligence was assessed as KRW 33,672,960 (i.e., daily income + KRW 6,729,856 during the period of medical care + positive damages + KRW 17,70,680 after the completion of medical care; and (e) the injury amount to the Plaintiff within KRW 39,006,3000.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier regarding the interpretation of Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree, the lower court should first examine whether the amount of damage caused by the injury of the victim exceeds the maximum amount of the injury insurance proceeds according to the above grade, whether the amount of damage caused by the injury exceeds the maximum amount of the injury insurance proceeds due to the injury grade, and whether the amount of damage caused by the subsequent disability exceeds the maximum amount of the injury insurance proceeds due to the above grade of disability, and then should have determined the sum of the injury insurance proceeds calculated within the limit

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, that the amount that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff is the amount of damages sustained by the victim within the scope of the total sum of the amount of injury insurance proceeds according to the injured grade and the amount of subsequent disability insurance proceeds according to the disability grade. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the lower judgment cannot be reversed on the whole

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning the payment of 6,902,280 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)