All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2023Da272883 Decided February 15, 2024 【Indemnity Amount】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Legal nature of a special agreement on the guarantee for injuries from uninsured vehicles (held: non-life insurance type injury insurance), and in a case where multiple insurance contracts involving a special agreement on the guarantee for injuries from uninsured vehicles have been concluded for a loss resulting from the same single accident and the sum of the insured amount exceeds the amount of losses the insured incurred, whether Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act applies mutatis mutandis (affirmative) Where multiple insurers are jointly and severally liable for an accident up to the amount insured by each pursuant to the mutatis mutandis application of Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act, whether each insurer is in a relationship where individual insurers are jointly and severally liable for the payment of insurance proceeds, even though there is no subjectively communal relationship among the said insurers (affirmative in principle), and in such an instance, how the insureds may seek payment of insurance proceeds and how the insurers, after having made payment of insurance proceeds, may exercise the right of indemnity In cases involving double insurance, whether the parties to each insurance contract may set forth methods for the insurer’s compensation and allocation of liability among several insurers different from what is stipulated in Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act (affirmative) [2] Whether indemnification by a prior insurer for a subsequent insurer in cases involving double insurance, pursuant to the Mutual Agreement Concerning Deliberation on Indemnity Disputes in Motor Insurance and its enforcing bylaw, has the nature of indemnification between double insurers in a relationship under which each insurer is jointly and severally liable for the payment of insurance proceeds to the insureds-claimants, even though the liabilities arose from separate and unrelated cause (affirmative) [3] In a case where a debtor made payment to his or her debt, either voluntarily or via a performance assistant, without legal cause, or where a third party made payment to another person’s debt without legal cause, the person who can file an action for restitution of unjust enrichment of the consideration given as the payment (held: a debtor or third party having made the payment), and where the burden of proof of the payment entity lies (held: the person who files an action for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the premise that the counterparty to the action is the payment entity) | |
