[1] The period of extinctive prescription of the claim acquired by the insurer by subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Code, and the standard of determining the starting point

[2] The case holding that in a case where an insurance company which has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the victim for the damaged motor vehicle pays the insurance money to the victim who is the insured for compensation for damage caused by the illegal act of a third party, in a case where the non-licensed driver caused the damage to the damaged motor vehicle while driving the damaged motor vehicle in a state of drinking and damaged the damaged motor vehicle, and the insurance company which has concluded the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the victim for the damaged motor vehicle pays the insurance money to the victim who is the insured, the claim for damages against the owner and the insurer of the damaged motor vehicle acquired by the insurance company as the insurer who has paid the insurance money in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation against the insurer, the insurer who has paid the insurance money, thereby acquiring the damage claim against the owner of the damaged motor vehicle and the insurer, the extinctive prescription of the damage claim against the owner

[1] Article 682 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 766 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 682 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da1770 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2132) Supreme Court Decision 99Da3143 delivered on June 11, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1377)

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Han Lan Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Na6922 decided July 21, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 1 on the instant damaged vehicle; (b) the Defendant Han Lan Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract on the instant damaged vehicle owned by Defendant 2; (c) the Defendant 2 was negligent in driving the vehicle on the front side of the Suwon-si transfer vehicle located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and parked the vehicle on the front side of the Suwon-si, and drinking alcohol with Nonparty 2; (d) around 07:50 on the same day, the Plaintiff returned the vehicle to his employees at KRW 10; (e) on the same day, Nonparty 2 was negligent in driving the vehicle at KRW 7:40 on the same day; and (e) the Plaintiff paid the damaged vehicle at KRW 15:50 on the left side of the vehicle without obtaining a driver’s license on the upper side of the damaged vehicle.

Furthermore, under the premise that Nonparty 1 is in the position of joint tortfeasor with Defendant 2, who is the operator of the YA vehicle, the lower court determined that Defendant 2, who is the other joint tortfeasor, was exempted from liability by paying each of the above medical expenses. Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ defense of extinctive prescription on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity against Defendant 2 and the Defendant Company, who is the insurer of Nonparty 1 acquired by the Plaintiff, is ten years as general claims.

2. However, Article 682 of the Commercial Act provides that the insurer who paid the insured amount shall acquire the rights of the policyholder or the insured with respect to the third party within the limit of the amount paid, in cases where the damage was caused by a third party’s act. Such subrogation by the insurer transfers the rights to the third party, such as the insured, to the insurer without loss of identity. As such, it is the Supreme Court’s decision that the period of extinctive prescription of the claim acquired by the insurer and its starting point of calculation should be determined based on the claim itself against the third party (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da3143, Jun. 11, 199, etc.).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff paid insurance money to the non-party 1, as compensation equivalent to the medical expenses of the non-party 1, the insured, and the repair expenses of the non-party 1, in accordance with the non-party 2's tort under the non-party 2's special agreement on the warranty of non-party 1, among the insurance contracts in this case with the non-party 1, since there is no possibility that there may be problems

Therefore, as an insurer who has paid insurance money, the Plaintiff acquires the damage claim itself against the Defendants by subrogation. Accordingly, the three-year extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act shall progress from the time when Nonparty 1 became aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and the extinctive prescription shall proceed from the time when Nonparty 1 became aware of the damage and the perpetrator. Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated at the time when Nonparty 1 became aware of the damage and whether the extinctive prescription has expired.

Nevertheless, the court below held that with respect to the insurance money that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1, the claim for reimbursement against the defendants shall not be the damage claim by subrogation of the insurer, and that the ten-year extinctive prescription has taken place, there is a ground for violation of Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by making decisions contrary to the contents of the claim acquired by subrogation of the insurer and the precedents of

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)