(a) Where an exception to extinguishment of claim is recognized due to confusion;

(b) Where the victim's direct right to claim for damage exists to an insurance company, whether the victim's right to claim for damage against the operator is not extinguished due to confusion when the damage claim and liability are reverted to the same person by inheritance, as the operator and his/her relatives who died due to a traffic accident;

(c) Standards for calculation of operating years for victims of foreign residence;

A. Article 507 of the Civil Act recognizes the existence of confusion as the cause of extinguishment of a claim is not a positive reason for not recognizing the existence of a claim and a debt when the claim and the debt belong to the same subject, but for such a reason, recognizing the existence of a claim and the debt does not have any particular meaning. Therefore, even if a claim and the debt belong to the same subject, if there are special reasons for recognizing the existence of a claim and the debt, if the claim and the debt belong to the same subject, they cannot be extinguished due to confusion and continue to exist as they are, in light of the above, even if they belong to the same person, if there is a legitimate interest to recognize the existence of a claim as the premise of the exercise of the right against a third party by the creditor and the debtor, it is reasonable to deem that the claim are not extinguished due to confusion.

B. In a case where a vehicle operator who caused a traffic accident or his/her relatives died while driving a motor vehicle and thus becomes liable to the same person by inheritance, if the operator of the motor vehicle who caused the traffic accident has subscribed to the motor vehicle damage liability insurance, the fact that there is a social need to protect the victim of the traffic accident or his/her heir by giving benefit from liability insurance under the contract except in special cases such as becoming the victim's heir does not differ from other traffic accidents. On the other hand, the insurer of the motor vehicle damage liability insurance is a claim by inheritance. The insurer of the motor vehicle accident liability insurance is not only a third party unrelated to the merger of the obligation, but also a third party who is already receiving the insurance premium, which is the price for his/her obligation to compensate, and there is no reasonable reason to avoid his/her own liability to compensate due to inheritance between the perpetrator of the traffic accident and the victim. Therefore, if the so-called direct claim is accompanied by the so-called direct claim that the victim can directly claim the insurance money under the terms and conditions of the motor vehicle accident liability insurance, it shall not be deemed as a confusion between the victim under Article 3 of the Guarantee Act.

C. If the victim who died from a traffic accident had no accident, it is reasonable to calculate the lost income on the premise of the income that he/she would have obtained in the future when he/she had been residing in a foreign country, so the operating year should also be based on it in a foreign country.

a.B.Article 507(b) of the Civil Code, Article 3 and Article 12 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 724(c) of the Commercial Code, Article 763(Article 393) of the Civil Code, Article 13 of the Conflict of Laws

C. Supreme Court Decision 69Da2039, 2040 Delivered on February 10, 1970

Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and two others

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na2291 delivered on August 20, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, around January 18:30, 191, Nonparty 1 driven the instant car, his own husband, and caused the instant traffic accident, which occurred at a point 195.8 km, YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's liability for damages against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 succeeded to the damage liability of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 and the damage liability of the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 was extinguished by confusion under the Civil Act, and therefore the defendant's obligation was also extinguished by confusion under the Civil Act. In other words, although the damage liability of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were inherited or transferred at the same time and the damage liability of the non-party 1 were caused by the non-party 2 and the non-party 2's inheritance or transfer, the legal nature of the obligation of the insurer to compensate for the damage directly caused by the traffic accident to the victim under the terms and conditions of the automobile damage liability insurance contract exists concurrently with the damage liability of the insured or their inheritors, and the relationship between the insurer and the victim's damage liability against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 cannot be affected by the defendant's liability insurance contract.

B. The main text of Article 507 of the Civil Act provides that “a claim shall be extinguished when the claim and the debt belong to the same subject,” thereby recognizing the extinction of a claim due to confusion. The Civil Act recognizes such confusion as the cause of extinguishment of a claim is not an active reason for recognizing the continuation of a claim and the debt when the claim and the debt belong to the same subject, but an active reason for recognizing the existence of a claim and the debt in such a case does not have any particular meaning, and thus, it is deemed that the purpose of recognizing the extinguishment of a claim and the continuation of a claim is to simplify the relationship of obligations

Therefore, even if a claim and a debt belong to the same subject, if there is a special reason to recognize the existence of the claim, it shall be reasonable to deem that the claim continues to exist without being extinguished due to confusion. The reason is that the proviso of Article 507 of the Civil Act provides that if a claim is the subject of a third party’s right, the extinction of the claim due to confusion does not arise. This is because the reason is that, in the event the inheritor makes a qualified acceptance or separates the inherited property from its proprietary property (Articles 1031 and 1050 of the Civil Act), when the obligor becomes a creditor on securities such as bills, checks, etc. (Articles 11(3) and 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and Article 14(3) of the Check Act are also the same.

In light of the purport of the main text and proviso of Article 507 of the Civil Act, even in cases where a claim and debt are reverted to the same person, if there is a legitimate interest to recognize the existence of the claim as a premise for the exercise of the right against a third party by the creditor and the obligor, it is reasonable to deem that the claim is not extinguished due to confusion.

C. From this point of view, as in the instant case, when an operator of an automobile who caused a traffic accident or his/her relatives died while driving the automobile, and thus reverted to the same person by inheritance, the liability insurance claim and liability under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall be attributed to the same person. Considering the issue of cases where the operator of an automobile who caused a traffic accident is entitled to the liability insurance for automobile damages, there is social need to protect the victim of the surviving traffic accident or his/her heir except in special cases where the perpetrator becomes his/her heir, etc., by granting benefit from liability insurance pursuant to the liability insurance for the victim of the accident or his/her heir. On the other hand, the insurer of the liability insurance for automobile damages is not different from other traffic accidents. In addition, the insurer of the liability insurance for automobile is not only a third party unrelated to the obligation itself, but also a third party who has already been receiving the insurance premium, which is a consideration for his/her liability for liability, and there is no reasonable ground to avoid his/her liability for damages due to inheritance between the perpetrator of the traffic accident and the victim.

D. However, in this case, the defendant company is liable for damages sustained by the non-party 1 due to the death or injury of the remaining in the operation of the above vehicle between the defendant company and the defendant company. If the victim is unable to receive damages due to the death of the insured, the fact that the defendant company entered into an automobile liability insurance contract that recognizes the so-called direct claim that the victim may directly claim the payment of the insurance money to the defendant company is as determined by the court below. Thus, even if the plaintiff 1 and 2 succeeded to the damage claim of this case against the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who are his/her his/her offspring, and the damage liability against the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, as long as the damage is not actually compensated, it is reasonable to view that the above damage liability is not extinguished due to confusion. Therefore, the above plaintiffs can exercise the direct claim against the defendant under the insurance contract.

E. Therefore, the court below's decision that the direct claim against the defendant by the plaintiff 1 and 2 was not extinguished is not appropriate in its reasoning, but is just in its result, and the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, which are premised on the termination of the above plaintiffs' damage claim by confusion, are without merit without further determination.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

As decided by the court below, even if the non-party 3 married to the non-party 4 who is a Japan on February 4, 198 and resided in Japan east-do from March 8, 1988, since it is our country where the occurrence of the accident of this case occurred, the law of our country shall apply to the compensation for damages caused by the accident of this case as pointed out.

However, if Nonparty 3 had no accident in this case, it is reasonable to calculate the lost income on the premise of the income that he can obtain in the future if he had a circumstance to continue residing in Japan, so the maximum working age should also be based on it in Japan (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da2039, 2040 delivered on February 10, 1970).

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and the fact-finding of the court below as to maximum working age is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or violation of the rules of evidence. The arguments are without merit.

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)