[1] The starting point for the statute of limitations of insurance claims

[2] In a case where an employer paid medical expenses for occupational injury to an employee, whether the office management is established in relation to the insurance company (negative)

[1] Article 662 of the Commercial Code provides that the right to claim insurance amount shall expire if it is not exercised for two years, and it does not stipulate any provision on the starting point of the right to claim insurance amount. Thus, Article 166 (1) of the Civil Code provides that "the extinctive prescription shall run from the time when the right to claim insurance amount can be exercised." Thus, the right to claim insurance amount is only an abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, and it is only possible to exercise the right from the time when the insurance accident is determined as a specific right due to the occurrence of the insurance accident, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to interpret that the extinctive prescription

[2] The employer’s payment of medical expenses for occupational injury is the employer’s performance of the employer’s obligation under the Labor Standards Act, which is the performance of its business affairs, and it cannot be deemed that another person’s business affairs are dealt with (this case is a case pertaining to the employee’s accident liability insurance where the employer bears medical expenses, medical expenses, etc. due to an employee’s occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act).

[1] Article 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 734 and 739 of the Civil Act, Article 78 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see current Article 81)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da39822 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2240), Supreme Court Decision 97Da36521 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3772), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1966 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 711)

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Newdong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na17185 delivered on October 23, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the first and second points

The Korean Commercial Act only provides that the claim for insurance amount shall expire if it is not exercised for two years (Article 662), and it does not stipulate any provision regarding the starting point of calculating the period of extinctive prescription. Thus, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the extinctive prescription shall run from the time it is possible to exercise its right." Thus, the claim for insurance amount is only an abstract right before the occurrence of an insurance accident, and it is possible to exercise its right from the time when the occurrence of an insurance accident is confirmed as a specific right. Thus, in principle, the extinctive prescription of the claim for insurance amount should be interpreted to run from the time when the insurance accident occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da39822, Jul. 13, 1993; 97Da36521, Nov. 11, 1997; 96Da19666, Feb. 13, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by the court below, the plaintiff was aware of the occurrence of the insurance accident around March 19, 194 when the non-party, who is his employee, completed medical treatment for a disaster and was responsible for medical expenses. The lawsuit of this case was filed on March 25, 1996 when two years have elapsed since that time, and the claim for insurance claim of this case under the insurance contract of this case was extinguished by prescription. The above extinctive prescription was rejected by the plaintiff's assertion that the period of extinctive prescription runs from January 1, 1996 when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case or from the time when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case,

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the content of the insurance contract and the initial date of extinctive

The first and second points are without merit.

On the third ground for appeal

The payment of medical expenses for occupational injury by the above Nonparty is the performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation under the Labor Standards Act, which is the performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation, and it cannot be viewed as the performance of another’s business.

The judgment of the court below that made the same purport is correct, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles of Articles 734 and 739 of the Civil Act concerning the management of affairs as pointed out in the grounds

The third point is without merit.

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.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)