The judgment below

Among them, the part against the Defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is to be brought to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal on the scope of subrogation of damage claim arising from health insurance benefits

A. If a victim of a tort provides health insurance benefit under the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “health insurance”), the National Health Insurance Corporation shall obtain the victim’s damage claim against the perpetrator to the extent of the expenses incurred in providing such insurance benefit (Article 58(1) and Article 53(1) of the National Health Insurance Act before wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201). This is to prevent the victim who received the health insurance benefit from receiving double benefit by receiving damages from the perpetrator. As such, the damage claim that the victim received by subrogation is limited to the damage claim for the same reason as the health insurance benefit out of the total damage claim of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da34091, Dec. 21, 1993; 2009Da100920, May 13, 2011). Therefore, in cases where the victim’s damage claim competes with that of the National Health Insurance Corporation under the foregoing provision, the amount of the damage claim should be calculated within the entire amount of the health insurance benefit claim.

B. The lower court: (1) (1) Defendant A, a mother of January 2, 2008, caused the instant accident due to the instant violation of the duty of Jeonju, while driving the instant vehicle owned by Defendant B, which was owned by Defendant B; (2) Defendant D was treated at several medical care institutions from January 2, 201 to December 201, 201, and from January 7, 2011 to September 27, 2012 due to the instant accident.