[1] The legal nature of the victim's direct right to claim under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act (=claim for damages) and whether the court is bound by the payment criteria for the automobile comprehensive insurance terms and conditions when calculating the amount of damages that the insurer has to compensate for to the victim

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap, the owner of a vehicle causing a traffic accident, exercised a direct claim under the Commercial Act against Eul, the insurer of the vehicle causing the traffic accident, for the damage caused by the reduction of the exchange value of the vehicle, but Eul rejected this claim on the ground that Eul's "damage resulting from the decline in the exchange value of the vehicle" in the comprehensive automobile insurance clause provides that the repair cost exceeds 20% of the transaction value of the vehicle immediately before the accident, Eul shall be liable to compensate for the damage resulting from the reduction of exchange value in accordance with Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act

[1] The legal nature of the victim’s right of direct action pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim is the right to claim damages against the insurer and the insured’s right to claim damages against the insurer, not the right equivalent thereto. The purport of the victim’s right of direct action is that the liability for damages borne by the insurer based on the victim’s right of action is premised on an insurance contract and should be recognized within the insurer’s limit of liability pursuant to an insurance contract. It does not mean that the court is bound by the criteria for the payment

[2] In a case where Gap, the owner of a vehicle causing traffic accident, exercised a direct claim under the Commercial Act against Eul insurance company, the insurer of the vehicle causing traffic accident, but Eul refused to pay a certain amount of damages caused by the decline in the exchange value of the vehicle, on the ground that the repair cost is more than 20% of the transaction value of the vehicle immediately before the accident, the case holding that the judgment below which held that Eul did not have the liability limit for damages caused by the decline in the exchange value of the vehicle due to traffic accident is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment by holding that Eul's damage to Gap's exchange value does not fall under the insurer's compensation scope under the insurance contract. The above contract clause does not specify the insurer's liability limit, but it is not bound by the payment criteria stipulated in the insurance contract. Thus, Eul's liability is not limited to the payment criteria stipulated in the insurance contract.

[1] Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819 delivered on May 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1824)

Plaintiff

DB insurance Co., Ltd.

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Na73102 decided November 29, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The legal nature of the victim’s direct right to claim 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 victim, and the victim is the right to claim damages against the insurer and the insured’s right to claim damages against the insurer, not the right corresponding thereto. The purport of the victim’s direct right to claim damages that the insurer bears is premised on the insurance contract and should be recognized within the insurer’s limit of liability pursuant to the insurance contract. It does not mean that the court does not mean that the insurer is bound by the criteria for the payment of the automobile comprehensive insurance clause in calculating the amount of damages that the insurer should compensate for to the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819,

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the instant accident after the new registration on July 26, 2017 and the elapse of about five months. At the time, the transaction value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was equivalent to KRW 29,50,000, and ② the instant accident caused damage to the backer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the biter, set-off panel, set-line panel, set-line panel, and set-off members, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and paid KRW 3,765,789 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. ③ The instant accident suffered significant damage to the extent that it is impossible to completely restore the Plaintiff’s vehicle to its original state. The amount of damages for the decrease of exchange value is assessed to be KRW 3,120,00,000, and ④ the payment standards for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to be paid to the Plaintiff’s vehicle exceeding 10% of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered loss from the reduction of exchange value corresponding to ordinary damages caused by the instant accident, and the terms and conditions of the instant contract do not stipulate the insurer’s limit of liability, but merely stipulate the insurance payment standards, and thus, the court’s calculation of the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant is not bound by the payment standards stipulated in the terms and conditions of the contract of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the claim for damages against the Plaintiff’s decline in exchange value on the ground that it does not fall under the insurer’s compensation scope under the insurance contract of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “a judgment contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents” as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, 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 Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)