Where two or more motor vehicles covered by liability insurance jointly participate in a single accident, the scope of the insurer's liability;

According to Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 5793 of Feb. 5, 199) and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of Jul. 14, 1995), a person who has registered a motor vehicle or reported the use of the motor vehicle must subscribe to liability insurance or liability mutual-aid for the victim to whom he/she is liable for the payment of the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree if he/she dies or is injured by another person due to the operation of the motor vehicle. The amount of liability insurance or liability mutual-aid money to be paid to one victim shall be based on the maximum amount of 15 million won for the deceased, and the amount of liability insurance or liability mutual-aid money to be paid to the victim shall be based on attached Table 1 in cases of injury. In light of the nature of the above liability insurance or liability mutual-aid.

Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 5793 of Feb. 5, 199) and Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of Jul. 14, 1995)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Corporation

Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 98Da22031 Delivered on February 5, 1999

Busan District Court Decision 99Na4907 delivered on June 4, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the evidence adopted by the judgment, the court below held that the Tracker owned by the non-party Youngnam Cargo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Y Youngnam Cargo") and the car owned by the defendant were involved in a traffic accident under the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and the non-party 1 died and the non-party 2 died, and the plaintiff paid damages to the deceased and the non-party 2 as the insurer of Youngnam Cargo, and the vehicle owned by the defendant also purchased the plaintiff's liability insurance. The court below held that the defendant is liable to pay the indemnity to the plaintiff as the owner of the vehicle in this case according to the ratio of the defendant's fault that contributed to the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case. The amount of the plaintiff's indemnity against the defendant shall be the amount calculated by deducting the liability insurance amount paid by the plaintiff to the victims of this case according to the ratio of the defendant's fault among the insurance amount paid by the plaintiff to the victim of this case.

However, according to the records, the judgment of the court below is the second appellate judgment after the remanded judgment of this case (Supreme Court Decision 98Da22031 delivered on February 5, 199), and the judgment of the court below before remanding that the defendant should deduct the amount to be deducted in calculating the amount of indemnity from the total amount of the liability insurance money that the plaintiff paid to the victims of this case by purchasing the plaintiff's liability insurance. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below before remanding the judgment of the court below, which determined that the amount of the liability insurance money paid to the victims of this case shall not exceed KRW 15 million, regardless of the number of automobiles involved in the accident, and that the amount of the liability insurance money paid to the victim

2. However, according to Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 5793, Feb. 5, 1999) and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14736, Jul. 14, 1995) of the same Act, a person who has registered or reported the use of a motor vehicle must subscribe to liability insurance or liability mutual aid (hereinafter referred to as "liability insurance") that takes responsibility for the payment of the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree to the victim in a case where another person dies or is injured due to the operation of the motor vehicle, and the liability insurance amount to be paid to the victim shall be based on the amount prescribed in attached Table 1 in the case of the deceased's maximum amount of KRW 15 million in the case of injury and injury. In light of the nature of the above liability insurance, if two or more motor vehicles subscribed to liability insurance jointly participated in a single accident, an insurer shall be held liable for the full amount of liability insurance amount to each victim.

On the other hand, the judgment of the case remanded to the court below which held that the amount of liability insurance when one victim died shall not exceed KRW 15 million regardless of the number of automobiles involved in the accident. Accordingly, the judgment of the case remanded to the court below should be changed to the extent that it conflicts with the legal principles as seen earlier.

3. If so, in this case, the amount calculated by the defendant's ratio of fault exceeds the limit of liability insurance at the time of the accident of this case among the amount compensated by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is the insurer of Yong-Nam cargo as well as the defendant's liability insurer. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay the whole amount of liability insurance to the defendant as the defendant's liability insurer. Therefore, the amount to be deducted from the plaintiff's indemnity amount should also be the total amount of liability insurance amount. It is obvious that the judgment of the court below after remanding the case is erroneous. However, it is obvious that the calculation of the amount that the plaintiff can recover from the defendant according to the above legal principles is smaller than the cited amount of the court below's judgment when calculating the amount that the plaintiff can recover to the defendant. Thus, the above error of the court below cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal is without merit without further determination.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices on the bench.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) shall be delivered with Jin-hun Jin-hun, Jin-hun, Lee Jae-hun, Lee Jae-dam, and the plaintiff shall be delivered with the plaintiff