(a) Where an insurance company pays insurance proceeds to the victim knowing that it falls under the provisions for exemption under the terms and conditions of insurance, the insurance company's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the illegal person;

B. In the case of “A”, whether an insurance company’s payment of insurance proceeds constitutes office management in relation to the illegal party

A. In a case where an insurance company did not know that the insurance company did not have an obligation to pay the insurance proceeds and paid the insurance proceeds to the victim as the insurer, the victim can seek the return thereof. Therefore, as long as the victim has a duty to return unjust enrichment to the insurance company, the damage claim against the illegal person still exists. Therefore, it is justifiable to reject the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the illegal act of the insurance company on the ground that the

B. In the case of “A”, an insurance company paid insurance money with the intent of performing its obligation or managing affairs for the insured, and therefore, there is no room to establish an office management in relation to the illegal party due to the payment of insurance money such as “A” by the insurance company.

A. Article 741 of the Civil Act; Article 682 of the Commercial Act; Articles 734 and 739(1) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da200 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 143)

[Defendant-Appellant] Han Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

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

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na2784 delivered on June 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that according to the terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff insurance company and the non-party 1, the insurer shall be exempted from liability for damages caused by accidents caused by continuous and repeated use or lease of insured motor vehicles for the purpose of fees or compensation. The non-party 1 provided that the non-party 1 (vehicle number omitted) who is an insured motor vehicle for a commercial transport act and operated the motor vehicle for a commercial transport, and the defendant did not discover the earth bomb accumulated on the road and passed through it, and the accident occurred that the victims of this case were injured on the road, and the non-party 1 who was the insured without knowledge of the above non-party 1's commercial transport, paid the insurance money of this case to the above victims on behalf of the non-party 1 without knowing that the accident of this case constitutes the above exemption provision, and therefore, as long as the victims of this case have a duty to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the return of unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, by mistake, paid the above insurance money to the above victims, the plaintiff paid the debt of the non-party 1 and the defendant. So long as the claim for damages against the non-party 1 and the defendant has expired by prescription, the plaintiff cannot claim the return of the above insurance money to the above victims pursuant to Article 745 (1) of the Civil Code, so the plaintiff can exercise the right of indemnity against the defendant according to the ratio of negligence pursuant to Article 745 (2) of the Civil Code. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is related to the new facts that had not been asserted up to

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of expenses due to the management of affairs against the defendant on the ground that there is no room for the management of affairs with the defendant in relation to the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the management of affairs such as theory, and there is no ground for argument.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)