[1] The criteria for paying compensation for damage caused by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business in the event of an accident or an accident without an insurance vehicle

[2] Whether the initial date for the payment of compensation due to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business can be the date of occurrence of traffic accident (negative)

[1] Article 26 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "the Government shall compensate for damage suffered by a person who has died or has been injured due to the operation of an automobile, the owner of which is not known, or when a person who has not been an insured person, etc. is liable for compensation for damage under Article 3, at the request of the victim." Article 26 (3) of the same Act provides that "the matters necessary for the objects, standards, amounts, methods, procedures, etc. of the Government's compensation or support under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 15 of the same Act provides that "The amount of compensation to be paid by the Government to a victim pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the same Act shall be calculated according to the standards for payment of liability insurance under the terms and conditions of the liability insurance policy authorized by the Insurance Business Act." In addition to the amount of liability insurance, the amount of compensation for damage caused by the motor vehicle accident shall be paid within the limit of the amount of compensation for damage caused by the owner of the accident or the insurer's accident."

[2] In the case of compensation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business, there is no basis to pay damages for delay at the statutory rate of five percent per annum from the date of traffic accident.

[1] Article 26 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Articles 379 and 397 of the Civil Act; Article 26 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Yoon Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hank, Attorneys Cho Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na33484 delivered on December 5, 2001

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On May 2, 200, the court below acknowledged the fact that Non-party 1, who is the deceased's predecessor, died of an accident by non-life insurance, and held that in the case of this case where compensation for damages is made pursuant to the government's automobile accident compensation guarantee business, the defendant's assertion that only the amount according to the payment standard of insurance money under the provisions of the provisions of the provisions of Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs pursuant to the above provision. The automobile accident compensation guarantee business is on the extension of the liability insurance system as a system for relieveing the victims of an accident that is not able to properly perform the function of liability insurance, such as the accident in small accident in which the owner is unknown, and there is no ground to separately operate the above guarantee business and the liability criteria for compensation for liability insurance. The court determined that Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act is merely a case where the government or the trustee of the compensation business voluntarily pays compensation to the victim.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

Article 26 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "where a motor vehicle owner dies or sustains an injury due to the operation of a motor vehicle, the owner of which is not known, and the owner of a motor vehicle becomes liable for damages under Article 3, the Government shall compensate for the damage he/she suffers within the limit of the insurance amount of liability insurance at the victim's request." Article 26 (3) of the same Act provides that "the matters necessary for the objects, standards, amounts, methods, procedures, etc. of the Government's compensation or support under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 15 of the same Act provides that "The amount of compensation to be paid to a victim pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the same Act shall be calculated according to the standards for payment of the liability insurance amount stipulated in the provisions of the Insurance Business Act, the amount of compensation for damage by the motor vehicle owner shall be determined separately from the amount of liability insurance (the amount of compensation insurance shall be paid within the limit of the insurance amount under Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act)."

Therefore, the defendant, who is the entrusted agency of the motor vehicle accident compensation business, is not liable to compensate for the actual damage of the victim who is liable to compensate for the accident by non-life insurance, but should pay only the amount according to the payment criteria of insurance money stipulated by the terms and conditions of the liability insurance.

Nevertheless, in the case of an accident caused by an accident caused by an accident without insurance, the court below erred in interpreting the above provisions of the Act on the Criteria for Payment of Compensation or understanding the validity of such provision by erroneous understanding. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation or validity of the above provisions, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal

3. Meanwhile, ex officio, the portion of "interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 2003) was decided as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on April 24, 2003. Accordingly, the above amended legal provisions and the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17981 of May 29, 2003) shall apply to cases pending before the court at the time of the enforcement of the above amended Act at the statutory rate of interest rate of 25% per annum from the day following the date of the issuance of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by applying the above amended legal provisions to order damages for delay.

In addition, the court below also pointed out that the damages for delay at the statutory rate of 5% per annum from the date of the traffic accident, as in the case of ordering the payment of the insurance money under liability insurance, are generated. However, in the case of compensation under the motor vehicle accident guarantee business, there is no ground to pay the damages for delay additionally from the

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of 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 Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)