In a case where an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act pays compensation to the victim, whether the victim's vicarious exercise of the right to claim compensation for damages against the owner of the vehicle caused by the same accident and the person liable for tort liability under the Civil Act can be held (negative)

Articles 3, 26(1), 31(1), and 37(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Article 481 of the Civil Act

Mez Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Vindication, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na39494, 39500 decided March 30, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 26 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “In cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the Government shall compensate for the damage inflicted upon the victim’s request within the limit of the insurance amount of liability insurance.” Article 26 (1) of the Act provides that “In cases where the owner of an automobile is dead or injured due to the operation of an automobile for which the identity of the owner of the automobile is unknown,” and Article 31 (1) of the Act provides that “In cases where the Government compensates for the damage under Article 26 (1), the Government may exercise in subrogation the victim’s right to claim compensation for the damage against the person who is liable for the damage under Article 3 within the limit of the amount of compensation, within the limit of the amount of compensation.” Thus, in cases where an insurer entrusted with the business of the guarantee business under Article 26 (1) of the Act pursuant to Article 37 (1) of the Act pays compensation to the victim, the insurer shall be held jointly and severally liable to the victim’s liability for damages under the Civil Act.

According to the facts duly established by the court below and the records, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 on February 1, 1990), who is a minor, as children of the defendant (the non-party 1) (the non-party 1 on June 20, 200), committed a conflict with the non-party 2 driver's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 80.

According to the above facts, the defendants' ordinary guidance and advice are about 14 years old at the time of the accident, and they neglected their duty to supervise and educate the non-party 1, who does not have a sufficient driving function to safely operate the Oral Ba, so that they could adapt to society, such as preventing the non-party 1 from driving the Oral Ba, which caused damage to the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 by causing the accident in this case, and there is a proximate causal relation between the defendants' negligence and the damage. Thus, the defendants cannot be exempted from the liability for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act against the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 as a general tortfeasor. However, considering the above Oral Ba's ownership relationship is unclear, and the defendants are not involved in the maintenance, management or use of the above Oral Ba, even if the non-party 1 was in a residential relationship with the defendants and is unable to exercise the defendants' substantial control over the operation or profit.

As such, insofar as the Defendants merely bear the liability for damages arising from general tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and cannot be deemed to bear the liability for damages under Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, even if the Plaintiff paid 80 million won to Nonparty 4, the victim of the instant accident, as the guaranteed business entity, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the above liability for damages against the Defendants under Article 31(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and the insurer’s payment of compensation for the guaranteed business to the victim is not a vicarious exercise of the victim’s right for damages under Article 31(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and the insurer’s payment of compensation for the guaranteed business to the victim is a self-responsibility under Article 480 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by failing to render a decision as to the plaintiff's assertion on the subrogation of the victim's right to claim damages against the defendants under Article 31 (1) of the Self-help Act due to the defendants' tort liability and the payment of compensation under Article 756 or 750 of the Civil Act, or the plaintiff's assertion on the subrogation of the person who performed reimbursement under Article 481 of the Civil Act. However, since the plaintiff's assertion cannot be rejected for the same reason as seen earlier, the omission of the judgment by the court below cannot be seen as affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)