Mo Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Bain, Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

this Court Order 2003Kadan14475 dated July 8, 2003

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

According to the records, on June 28, 2003, the appellant filed an application for provisional attachment against the appellant for the right to claim compensation for damages against the appellant (hereinafter “instant claim”) based on the Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na39281 (i). However, the court below found the order of the court below that dismissed the appellant’s application for provisional attachment on July 8, 2003 on the ground that the instant claim is a claim for direct claim against the victim of traffic accident and a claim for prohibition of attachment under Article 32 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Automobile Accident Compensation Act”).

According to Articles 19 and 12(1) of the Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 5793 of February 5, 1999, the appellant asserts that the scope of prohibition of seizure is limited to the insurance money subject to liability even under the current law, even if the term “within the limit of the liability insurance amount” was deleted upon the amendment of the Act. However, in light of the purpose of the Act and relevant provisions, the appellant asserts that the scope of prohibition of seizure is limited to the insurance money subject to liability insurance.

In light of the above, Article 19 of the former Self-Governing Act (amended by Act No. 5793, Feb. 5, 199) prohibits seizure of the victim's direct right to claim insurance money against the insurer of traffic accident under Article 32. However, with respect to the scope of the victim's direct right to claim insurance money, Article 12 (1) of the former Self-Governing Act provides that "where the guaranteed party is liable for damages under Article 3, the injured party may claim insurance money or mutual aid money to the insurer within the extent of the liability insurance amount under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." On the other hand, Article 9 (1) of the current Self-Governing Act provides that "where liability insurance money under Article 3 has occurred to the insured, the injured party may claim directly payment of insurance money to the insurer under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, etc., regardless of whether it is the subject of seizure under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to view that the victim's direct right to claim insurance money under Article 274 of the current Self-Governing Act."

Therefore, the order of the court below that dismissed the appellant's motion on the ground that the entire claim of this case constitutes the claim prohibited from seizure, is justifiable, and since the appellant's appeal of this case is without merit, the appeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hwang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)