• 방재와보험
• /
• s.91
• /
• pp.58-62
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.87-130
• /
• 2015

In a case in which National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC) pays medical care expenses to a victim of a traffic accident resulting in injury or death and asks the assailant for compensation of its share in the medical care expenses, as the precedent treats the subrogation of a claim set by National Health Insurance Act the same as that set by Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it draws the range of its compensation from the range of deduction, according to the principle of deduction after offsetting and acknowledges the compensation of all medical care expenses borne by the NHIC, within the amount of compensation claimed by the victim. However, both the National Health Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are laws that regulate social insurance, but medical care expenses in the National Health Insurance Act have a character of 'an underinsurance that fixes the ratio of indemnification,' while insurance benefit on the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has a character of full insurance, or focuses on helping the insured that suffered an industrial accident lead a life, approximate to that in the past, regardless of the amount of damages according to its character of social insurance. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the subrogation of a claim on the National Health Insurance Act the same as that on the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Since the insured loses the right of claim acquired by the insurer by subrogation in return for receiving a receipt, there is no benefit from receiving insurance in the range. Thus, in a suit in which the insured seeks compensation for damages from the assailant, there is no room for the application of the legal principle of offset of profits and losses, and the range of subrogation of a claim or the amount of deduction from compensation should be decided by the contract between the persons directly involved or a related law. Therefore, it is not reasonable that the precedent draws the range of the NHIC's compensation from the principle of deduction after offsetting. To interpret Clause 1, Article 58 of the National Health Insurance Act that sets the range of the NHIC's compensation uniformly and systematically in combination with Clause 2 of the same article that sets the range of exemption, if the compensation is made first, it is reasonable to fix the range of the NHIC's compensation by multiplying the medical care expenses paid by the ratio of the assailant's liability. This is contrasted with the range of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's compensation which covers the total amount of the claim of the insured within the insurance benefit paid in the interpretation of Clauses 1 and 2, Article 87 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. In the meantime, there are doubts about why the profit should be deducted from the amount of compensation claimed, though it is enough for the principle of deduction after offsetting that the precedent took as the premise in judging the range of the NHIC's compensation to deduct the profit made by the victim from the amount of damages, so as to achieve the goal of not attributing profit more than the amount of damage to a victim; whether it is reasonable to attribute all the profit made by the victim to the assailant, while the damages suffered by the victim are distributed fairly; and whether there is concrete validity in actual cases. Therefore, the legal principle of the precedent concerning the range of the NHIC's compensation and the legal principle of the precedent following the principle of deduction after offsetting should be reconsidered.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2014

The article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code allowed the third party to invoke a direct action against the insurer under a liability insurance. Meanwhile, the owners of the vessel enter into the P&I Insurance Contract with the P&I Club to indemnify all kinds of liability or expenses involved in the operation of its vessel. However, the Rule Book under the P&I Insurance mostly included the Pay to be Paid Clause which precludes the third party's direct action. Recently, the Seoul Central District Court passed a judgement on the validity of the Pay to be Paid Clause under the Korean law against the third party i.e. the cargo insurer having the right of subrogation. The court held that (1) the third party's right of direct action is not the right to claim insurance money but the right to claim damages against the P&I Club, (2) the insurer under a liability insurance is deemed to assume liability jointly and severally with the insured against the third party, (3) the Article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code is considered as a compulsory provision because it was invented to protect the innocent third party, the Paid to be Paid Clause is thus null and void. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the appropriateness of this court's judgments by comparative analysis of Korean and English law, and to suggest the relevant amendments of the Korean Commercial Code in order to prevent further legal disputes. The article criticizes the decision of the Seoul Central District Court, taking the attitude that, since the third party's right is the right to claim insurance money, the Paid to be Paid Clause is valid against the third party.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.79-117
• /
• 2023

Among the healthcare-related judgments handed down in 2002, there was a significant ruling on the timing of the duty of explanation, stating that, in order to ensure the exercise of the patient's right to self-determination, the patient must be given time to consider and decide on the risks and side effects of a medical procedure in specific circumstances. In addition, in a case where an insurance company claimed unjust enrichment against a medical institution on behalf of its insureds, the court provided a clear standard by distinguishing between active and passive requirements regarding the need to preserve the right of subrogation of creditors. In the area of medical administration, there was a ruling that clarified that a medical institution's business suspension under the National Health Insurance Act is directed against the medical institution, a ruling that broadly recognized causation in a case of compensation for side effects of corona vaccination, and a ruling on the scope of a medical practitioner's license, such as the use of ultrasound devices by an oriental medicine practitioner. In a case involving a patient's claim for eviction from a medical institution, the court reviewed a ruling on just cause for termination of a hospitalization contract in relation to Article 15(1) of the Medical law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea delivered a milestone judgment about air related multimodal transport. At there, the mattered cargo, some expensive jewellery, was transported from Qingdao, China to downtown office of consignee at Seoul via Incheon airport in Korea. As an air waybill was issued in this case, there was an air transport agreement between consignor and air courier operator. After arriving at Incheon airport, the shipment was transport by land arranged by the air courier operator, who was a defendant in this case. Upon arriving at the final destination, it was found that the jewellery was lost partly and based on circumstantial evidence, the damage presumed to be occurred during the land transport. As a subrogee, the insurance company who paid for consignee filed an action against the air courier operator for damage compensation. Defendant contended that Montreal convention should be applicable in this case mainly for limited liability. The lower court of this case confirmed that applying the limited liability clause under Montreal Convention is improper under the reason that the damage in this case was or presumed to be occurred during surface transport. It was focused on the Montreal Convention article 18 which says that the period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision. The delivered opinion is that the terms of condition on the air waybill including limited liability clause should be prevailed in this case. It seems that the final judgment was considered the fact that the only contract made in this case was about air transport. This article is for analysis the above decisions from the perspective that it is distinguishable between a pure multimodal transport and an expanded air transport. The main idea of this article is that under the expanded air transport, any carriage by land, sea or inland waterway only for the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transhipment is still within the scop of air transport.