Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yellow-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Twin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Sung-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 5, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 38,877,560 won and the amount of 7,677,560 won from February 10, 201 to 31,200,00 won from October 15, 2003 to the service date of a copy of each complaint of this case and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as set forth in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 3-2, 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-1, 2-2, and 2.

A. On April 5, 200, the non-party 2 driven by the vehicle (vehicle No. 1 omitted) at the Gyeongnam (hereinafter in this case) which was owned by him and driven on April 12:56, 200, the non-party 2 suffered injury by Non-party 2's wife non-party 1, who was on the right side of the road, to cut off the right side side of the road No. 1, while driving on the two lanes of the two lanes, such as a scopic village road located in the scopic road at the scopic city, etc. on April 5, 200. The driver and the non-party 2, who moved on the scopic road of this case, changed the vehicle from the first lane to the two lanes of the above road (hereinafter in this case). The escape of this case was the same as the accident in this case (hereinafter in this case)

B. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 2 with respect to the instant vehicle. While Nonparty 1 claimed for damages on the ground of the instant accident, Nonparty 1 did not fall under another person provided for in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as the actual operator of the instant vehicle, and thus, Nonparty 2 was not liable for paying damages to the Defendant, who is the insurer of Nonparty 2.

C. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 claimed for the payment of compensation to the Plaintiff, who is a business operator entrusted with the business of guaranteeing the compensation of damages under Article 26 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and received 31,200,000 won from the Plaintiff, respectively, as the medical expenses of February 9, 201, the amount of KRW 7,67,560 from the Plaintiff, and other damages on October 14, 2003.

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is based on the negligence that the driver of the second vehicle of this case changed the vehicle of this case from the negligence that the driver of the second vehicle of this case caused the collision between the driver of the second vehicle of this case and the non-party 2's negligence that the non-party 1 paid to the non-party 1, who is the victim of the accident of this case, the plaintiff, the insurer of the first vehicle of this case. (The plaintiff stated in the complaint of this case that the non-party 1 exercises the right to claim the payment of damages against the defendant, the insurer of the first vehicle of this case. However, the plaintiff stated the case as the "action claiming the return of unjust enrichment" in the complaint of this case. However, the plaintiff's assertion was based on the reason that the driver of the second vehicle of this case was compensated for the damage suffered by the victim of the accident of this case within the limit of the liability insurance amount as the insurer of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the insurer

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the existence of Nonparty 2 from the time of the instant accident; (b) thus, the period of three years from April 5, 2000, which was the date of the instant accident, i.e., the period of three years from April 5, 200; and (c) the right to claim damages against Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and the Defendant extinguished by prescription; (d) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit

(b) Markets:

Therefore, we first examine the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription prior to examining the validity of the plaintiff's claim of this case.

According to Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, a claim for damages caused by a tort shall be extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised for three years from the date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and Article 682 of the Commercial Act provides that the insurer who paid the insured amount in cases where the damage was caused by a third party’s act shall acquire the rights of the policyholder or the insured against the third party within the limit of the amount paid. Thus, the insurer’s right to the third party such as the insured, etc. by subrogation is transferred to the insurer without loss of identity. In this case, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim acquired by the insurer and its starting point shall be determined on the basis of

As seen above, as to this case, as Nonparty 1 was a wife of Nonparty 2, he was aware that the accident of this case occurred by negligence between the driver of the second vehicle and Nonparty 2 at the time of the accident of this case. Thus, the right to claim compensation for damages against Nonparty 1 and the defendant who is the insurer of this case extinguished by prescription after three years from April 5, 200, which is the date of the accident of this case. It is clear in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed after June 3, 2005. The defendant's defense of the ground of claim of this case is without merit, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the ground of claim of this case cannot be accepted (the plaintiff's period of extinctive prescription should be deemed ten years, its starting point is also the time when the plaintiff actually paid compensation to the victim, and the defendant cannot be viewed as the joint tortfeasor 9 of this case's right to claim compensation for damages under the premise that the insurer of this case should be separately paid the insurance amount of the general tortfeasor 98.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Tae-il