Where an insurer under the National Health Insurance Act provides an insurance benefit to a victim for a tort and then subrogates his/her damage claim against the perpetrator, the extent of subrogation.

Article 53 of the National Health Insurance Act, Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2002Da50149 decided Dec. 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 481)

National Health Insurance Corporation

Heungwon Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Dongwon General Law Firm, Attorney Lee Ho-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na41467 Decided May 26, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a victim who has received insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act claims for damages against a third party, if the victim's negligence competes with that of the third party, the insurance benefits shall be offset by negligence from the amount of damage calculated first, and the insurance benefits so deducted shall not be offset by negligence. In a case where the insurer, after the victim paid the insurance benefits due to a tort, the victim has subrogated the damage claim against the perpetrator, the scope of subrogation is the total amount of insurance benefits provided within the scope of damage claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da50149, Dec. 26, 2002).

In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court’s determination that the Nonparty calculated the scope of the damage claim that the Defendants had against the Defendant by KRW 8,125,134, and that the Plaintiff may claim full reimbursement of KRW 7,230,700 for the insurance benefits paid by the Plaintiff within the scope is justifiable in accordance with the purport of the above Supreme Court’s precedents, and it can be seen that the lower court did not determine otherwise on the premise that the lower court either interpreted or opposed to the attitude of the above Supreme Court

In addition, the remaining grounds of appeal are nothing more than the grounds of appeal under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, since the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)