[1] Whether the victim's direct right to claim under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Code can be the object of subrogation of the insurer (affirmative)

[2] Whether the insurer of the joint tortfeasor can exercise the right of direct reimbursement among the insurers (affirmative)

[1] The right of an insurer acquired by subrogation of an insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act includes a claim for damages due to a tort committed by the insured against a third party or due to default. Meanwhile, the legal nature of a claim for direct compensation recognized by an insurer under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured's obligation to compensate for damages against the insured and the victim has a right to compensate for damages against the insurer. Thus, the right of direct compensation of the victim is naturally included in the right of the insurer acquired by subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the

[2] In the case of joint tort, the insurer who has concluded an insurance contract with each joint tortfeasor is directly liable for damages under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act in relation to the victim of the joint tort. Thus, if the insurer who has concluded an insurance contract with one of the joint tortfeasor pays the damages to the victim as insurance money, and the insurer who has jointly discharged the damages, the insurer who has paid the damages can exercise the right of direct indemnity against the part to be borne by the insurer of the other joint tortfeasor.

[1] Articles 682 and 724(2) of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 425 and 760 of the Civil Act; Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da17544 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2067) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3166 delivered on December 13, 198 (Gong1989, 106), Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819 delivered on May 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1824), Supreme Court Decision 94Da52911 delivered on July 25, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2940)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jung-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na4182 delivered on March 27, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the subrogation of the insurer

The right acquired by an insurer by subrogation of an insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act includes a claim for damages due to a tort committed by the insured against a third party due to the occurrence of the accident in itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3166, Dec. 13, 198). Meanwhile, the legal nature of the right of direct claim by the victim under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is the insurer’s assumption of the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages jointly against the insured, and the victim has the right to compensate for damages against the insurer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da6819, May 27, 1994; 94Da52911, Jul. 25, 1995). Such right of direct claim by the victim is naturally included in the right acquired by the insurer by subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged on September 6, 1994 that the car owned by the non-party, who purchased the automobile comprehensive insurance of the defendant company, paid insurance money of KRW 6,047,00 as damages of the non-party 2 company, the insured company paid insurance money of KRW 6,00,00,00,00 to the non-party 2 company's company's insurance money, and the non-party 1 company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 company") was invaded by the central line on the national highways located in the Macheon-gun-gun Ma-gun-gun, the national highways located in the Macheon-gun, the national highways located in the office of the defendant company, and then the non-party 2 company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 2 company") who purchased the plaintiff's automobile comprehensive insurance policy following the back of the car truck, and then the court below's judgment is just in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the insurer's right to claim compensation for damages as to the non-party 272.

2. As to the relation of indemnity between insurers

In the case of joint tort, the insurer who has concluded an insurance contract with each joint tortfeasor is directly liable for damages under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act in relation to the victim of each joint tort. Thus, if the insurer who has concluded an insurance contract with one of the joint tortfeasor pays the victim the damages as the insurance money to the victim, it is reasonable to view that the insurer who has paid the damages can directly exercise the right to indemnity against the part to be borne by the insurer of the other joint tortfeasor.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff paid 9,00,000 won as damages of the non-party 1 company, the victim caused by the accident in subrogation of the non-party 2, and as long as the plaintiff jointly discharged the defendant who is the insurer of other joint tortfeasor by subrogation of the non-party 2, the non-party 1 company, the insured, by jointly discharging the liability for damages against the non-party 1 company, the plaintiff can exercise the right to indemnity against the defendant within the scope of the exemption. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relation of recourse and joint and several liability as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal

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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)