[1] The purpose of the "business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation" under Article 14 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[2] In a case where a traffic accident victim received insurance money from an insurer of liability insurance, but the insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation receives another accident compensation from the insurer, the extinctive prescription period of the insurer's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment (=10 years)

[1] Article 14(2) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5793, Feb. 5, 1999) provides that where a person who is not an insurance policyholder, etc. (person who subscribed to mandatory insurance and the insured under the pertinent mandatory insurance contract) is liable to compensate for damage under Article 3 of the same Act, the Government shall only compensate for the damage he/she suffers within the limit of liability insurance amount upon the victim’s request. The guarantee business of automobile accident compensation under Article 14 of the same Act provides that the Government shall compensate within the limit of the insurance amount of the liability insurance amount for damage of the victim who died or was injured due to an accident caused by the operation of an automobile without an insurance policy, or the accident caused by the operation of an automobile without an insurance policy, it is not a matter of prompt compensation for the victim.

[2] Article 64 of the Commercial Code does not apply to the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the victim of the above insurer on the ground that the insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation for the reason that the victim received the insurance money from the insurer of the liability insurance for which the victim of the accident was subscribed, even though he received the insurance money from the insurer of the liability insurance, and it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription period is ten years in accordance with

[1] Article 14 (see current Article 30) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5793, Feb. 5, 199) / [2] Article 14 (see current Article 30) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 5793, Feb. 5, 199); Article 162 (1) of the Civil Act; Article 64 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da54450 decided Dec. 27, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 140)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeongse, Attorneys Han Sang-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Jeong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na35445 Decided March 30, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts of this case duly admitted by the court below are the insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing the compensation of motor vehicles by the government under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. On November 23, 1998, the Plaintiff Company paid 39 million won as compensation for damage to the Defendant, the Nonparty’s mother, on the ground that the instant sea vehicle is an non-insurance vehicle. The instant sea vehicle was covered by the liability insurance of the Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd already paid 7 million won as the medical expenses of the Nonparty on February 25, 1997, and 30 million won as the agreed amount with the Nonparty on June 27, 1997.

2. Article 14(2) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5793, Feb. 5, 1999) provides that in cases where a person who is not an insurance policyholder, etc. (the person who bought the mandatory insurance and the insured under the relevant mandatory insurance contract) is liable for damages under Article 3 of the same Act, the Government shall only compensate for the damages he/she suffers within the limit of the liability insurance amount upon the victim’s request, and the guarantee business of automobile accident compensation under Article 14 of the same Act provides that the Government shall compensate within the limit of the insurance amount of the liability insurance amount for damage of the victim who died or is injured due to an accident that occurred due to the operation of an uninsurance motor vehicle, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5450, Dec. 27, 2007).

Therefore, Article 64 of the Commercial Act does not apply to the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant of the plaintiff company, which caused the plaintiff company entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation, even though the defendant received insurance proceeds from the accident in this case from Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the liability insurance of which the defendant subscribed to, and the period of extinctive prescription is 10 years pursuant to Article 162 (1) of the Civil Act.

The lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment of this case ceased to exist due to the lapse of the period of five years commercial extinctive prescription is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)