In accordance with Article 26 (1) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, whether the right to claim compensation for a victim of a traffic accident by a motor vehicle or a non-insurance motor vehicle constitutes a right to claim compensation for a third party under Article 53 (1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (negative)

Article 26(1) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9065 of March 28, 2008) (see current Article 30(1)), Article 53(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141 of December 31, 201) (see current Article 58(1))

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da62477 Decided April 15, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da27452 Decided August 20, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1538) Supreme Court Decision 2012Da200394 Decided December 13, 2012 (Gong2013Sang, 152)

National Health Insurance Corporation

Hansung Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Kuduk, Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 201Na23870 decided May 10, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case, where the Supreme Court rendered a lower court’s judgment on a small-sum case at issue of the interpretation of the statutes, and thereafter expressed a different opinion from that of the lower court’s judgment on the relevant issue, the lower court’s judgment constitutes a case where the lower court rendered a decision contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents. Therefore, in such a case, Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act should be deemed to fall under “when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents” as provided for in the grounds for final appeal against a small-sum case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

2. In the instant case, the lower court determined that the guaranteed business entity entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation (hereinafter “guarantee business”) under Article 26 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9065, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “former Act”) includes a third party as stipulated in Article 53(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former National Health Insurance Act”). However, the lower court determined as follows through Supreme Court Decision 2012Da20028, Dec. 13, 2012, etc.

In other words, Article 53(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act provides that the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) shall obtain a right to claim compensation against a third party within the limit of the expenses to be incurred when a cause for insurance benefits occurred due to an act committed by a third party and a third party has provided the insured or his/her dependent with the insurance benefits. Thus, the right to claim compensation against the third party of the insured who received the insurance benefits pursuant to Article 53(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act arises due to an act committed by a third party is a right to claim compensation against the third party of the insured who received the insurance benefits within the limit of the expenses to be incurred in relation to the benefits. However, the guarantee business stipulated under Article 26(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act is not a type of social security system, the main purpose of which is to collect a certain amount of the insurance premium paid by the owner of the motor vehicle and to provide compensation to the victim due to an accident caused by the operation of a non-insurer motor vehicle, and thus, it cannot be seen as a right to claim compensation against the victim under the former National Health Insurance Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the issue of this case is contrary to the opinion expressed in the above Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to "the judgment against the Supreme Court's precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

3. The lower judgment is reversed, and 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 Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)