【Holding】
[1] Legal nature of the direct claim that a victim holds against an insurer under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act (= a claim for damages), and whether a court, in calculating the amount of damages the insurer must compensate to the victim, is bound by the payment standards of the comprehensive automobile insurance policy terms (negative)
[2] Where a traffic accident victim, on the ground that the victim was unable to use the automobile for a certain period necessary for repair, etc. due to damage caused by the accident, claims from the tortfeasor or the insurance business operator, as damages or insurance proceeds, the cost of renting another automobile of the same type and class for that period, the requirements for granting the claim and the method of calculating the rental cost in such case / Party bearing the burden of asserting and proving the necessity of the rental and the reasonableness of the amount of the rental cost (= the victim who rented the automobile)
[3] In a case where A company, engaged in the automobile rental business, rented automobiles to the owners of vehicles damaged in traffic accidents, and the damaged vehicles were, with one exception, all imported automobiles and the rented automobiles were all imported automobiles; B insurance company, etc., which had concluded automobile insurance contracts with respect to the at-fault vehicles, calculated, pursuant to the standard automobile insurance policy terms prescribed in the former Enforcement Rules on the Supervision of Insurance Business of the Financial Supervisory Service, the ordinary fee required to rent the lowest-priced domestic automobile among rental automobiles similar to the damaged vehicles in engine displacement and model year, and paid that amount to A company; and A company sought from B company, etc. payment of the difference obtained by deducting the amount actually received from B company, etc. from the amount of the claims for damages relating to rental fees against B company, etc. that A company had acquired by assignment from the owners of the damaged vehicles, the Court held that the lower court, which found it justified that B company, etc. calculated the rental fees in the above manner and paid them to A company without conducting the deliberations necessary to calculate the amount of damages corresponding to the rental cost, erred in its misapprehension of legal principles, etc.
【Summary of Decision】
[1] The legal nature of the direct claim recognized for a victim under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer has cumulatively assumed the insured's obligation to compensate the victim for damages, and it is a claim for damages that the victim holds against the insurer, not a modified form of, or a right corresponding to, the insured's claim for insurance proceeds against the insurer. The obligation to compensate damages borne by the insurer under such direct claim of the victim presupposes the insurance contract, which merely means that it should be recognized within the limit of the insurer's liability under the insurance contract; it does not mean that a court, in calculating the amount of damages the insurer must compensate to the victim, is bound by the payment standards of the comprehensive automobile insurance policy terms.
[2] Where a traffic accident victim, on the ground that the victim was unable to use the automobile for a certain period necessary for repair, etc. due to damage caused by the accident, claims from the tortfeasor or the insurance business operator, as damages or insurance proceeds, the cost of renting another automobile of the same type and class for that period, the claim may be granted only if the rental of the automobile was necessary and, further, the amount of the rental cost is also reasonable. Since property damage caused by a tort refers to the property disadvantage arising from an unlawful harmful act, that is, the difference between the property status that would have existed had there been no unlawful act and the present property status after the unlawful act was committed, the rental cost in such case should be calculated based on the amount required to rent from the rental market, as a substitute as of the time of the accident, an automobile with the same objective use value for a reasonable period during which the rental was necessary. Where an automobile identical to the damaged automobile in manufacturer, model name, engine displacement, model year, etc. was generally offered in the rental market, the rental cost should be calculated based on the amount required to rent that automobile from the rental market; where this is not the case, the rental cost may be calculated by adopting an objective and reasonable method in light of the characteristics of the damaged automobile, the conditions of the rental market, the scope of available data, etc. In the latter case, the identity of objective use value between the damaged automobile and the rented automobile may be determined by comprehensively considering various factors that may affect objective use value, such as the specifications, performance, model year, and exchange value of both automobiles, and where the identity of objective use value is not recognized, it is also possible to calculate the rental cost within a reasonable range in consideration of all circumstances. For example, where the damaged automobile was an old one whose useful life had already considerably elapsed but a new automobile was rented because a substitute whose useful life had elapsed to the same extent could not be obtained in the rental market, the rental cost may be calculated by reducing it in consideration of the difference in useful life or model year. In addition, if there is a dispute between the parties as to the necessity of the rental and the reasonableness of the amount of the rental cost, the burden of asserting and proving them lies with the victim who rented the automobile.
[3] In a case where A company, engaged in the automobile rental business, rented automobiles to the owners of vehicles damaged in traffic accidents, and the damaged vehicles were, with one exception, all imported automobiles and the rented automobiles were all imported automobiles; B insurance company, etc., which had concluded automobile insurance contracts with respect to the at-fault vehicles, calculated, pursuant to the standard automobile insurance policy terms prescribed in the former Enforcement Rules on the Supervision of Insurance Business of the Financial Supervisory Service (before being amended on December 22, 2022), the ordinary fee required to rent the lowest-priced domestic automobile among rental automobiles similar to the damaged vehicles in engine displacement and model year, and paid that amount to A company; and A company sought from B company, etc. payment of the difference obtained by deducting the amount actually received from B company, etc. from the amount of the claims for damages relating to rental fees against B company, etc. that A company had acquired by assignment from the owners of the damaged vehicles, the Court held as follows: the lower court should have calculated the amount of damages corresponding to the rental cost by examining whether automobiles identical to the damaged vehicles in manufacturer, model name, engine displacement, model year, etc. were generally offered in the rental market, and if not, whether the objective use value of the rented automobiles and the damaged vehicles could be regarded as identical, what the amount required to rent from the rental market a substitute with the same objective use value for each damaged vehicle was, and how long the reasonable period during which the rental was necessary was; nevertheless, without conducting the necessary deliberations, the lower court held that the damage could not be regarded as compensated only by having the owners rent imported automobiles merely because the damaged vehicles were imported automobiles, and found it justified that B company, etc. calculated the rental fees based on the lowest-priced domestic automobile among rental automobiles similar to the damaged vehicles only in engine displacement and model year and paid them to A company; in so holding, the lower court erred in its misapprehension of legal principles, etc.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act; Articles 724(2) and 726-2 of the Commercial Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act [burden of proof] [3] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da6819, May 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1824)
Supreme Court Decision 2018Da300708, April 11, 2019 (Gong2019Sang, 1072)
[2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070, June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2235)
Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, February 15, 2013
Supreme Court Decision 2022Da286335, January 4, 2024 (Gong2024Sang, 349)
(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2024Da208865, August 13, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Supreme Court of Korea)
2026. 10. 26. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail