[1] The nature of the victim's direct right to claim insurance money against the insurance company and the insured's right to claim insurance money due to a natural accident

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

[3] Where an insurance company notifies the holder of the insurance claim that the insurance accident is subject to exemption and is not subject to insurance payment, the starting point of counting extinctive prescription of the insurance claim (=the time of occurrence

[1] Under the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance (amended by Act No. 450, Oct. 14, 1993), the extinctive prescription is complete if the injured party does not exercise its right to directly claim insurance money or its insurance claim against the insurance company due to his own loss, which is not a claim for insurance amount under Article 662 of the Commercial Act, or if it is not exercised for two years.

[2] Where there are circumstances under which the claimant was unable to know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence because it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance proceeds from the time when the insurance accident occurred or could have been known, however, barring such special circumstances, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance proceeds from

[3] Even though an insurance company notified the holder of the right to claim for insurance against an accident that the victim died while driving a motor vehicle by himself/herself, such cause cannot be a legal obstacle in exercising the right to claim for insurance, and it cannot be deemed that the holder of the right to claim for insurance was aware of the occurrence of the insurance accident. Therefore, the insurance company's obligation to pay insurance proceeds under the insurance contract expires after the lapse of two years from the time of the occurrence of the accident.

[1] Article 662 of the Commercial Code / [2] Article 662 of the Commercial Code, Article 166 (1) of the Civil Code / [3] Article 662 of the Commercial Code, Article 166 (1) of the Civil Code

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Da3622 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1397) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da39822 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2240) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2626 delivered on January 19, 1982 (Gong1982, 257), Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da32053 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong192, 1406)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Ampoon, Attorneys Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na3117 delivered on July 15, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance (amended by Act No. 450, Oct. 14, 1993), all claims of the victim against the insurance company for direct claim of the insurance money or the insurance money of the insured due to their own loss shall not be different from claims of the insurance amount under Article 662 of the Commercial Act, and if they are not exercised for two years, the extinctive prescription shall expire (Supreme Court Decision 93Da3622, Apr. 13, 1993). Thus, the argument that the extinctive prescription of the above insurance claim takes three years, such as tort claims, cannot be accepted.

In a case where it is objectively unclear whether an insurance accident occurred or not, and there is a circumstance that the claimant could not know the occurrence of the insurance accident without fault, the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim is proceeding from the time when the insurance accident occurred or could have been known, but in principle, barring such special circumstances, the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim is in progress from the time when the insurance accident occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da39822, Jul. 13, 1993). Thus, in the case where the victim died while driving an automobile on his own, the insurance company notified the defendant of the erroneous fact that the insurance company cannot pay the insurance money because the accident in this case is eligible for exemption, such reason cannot be a legal obstacle in exercising the insurance right on the ground of a direct claim for insurance money or a loss, and it cannot be said that the defendant was unable to know that the insurance accident occurred. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which held that the insurance claim of the plaintiff against the defendant was extinguished after the lapse of two-year period from the time when the insurance accident occurred.

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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)