• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

The arbitration parties may disagree with the arbitrator's award about whether they are eligible for the dispute case. While lots of disputes cases relating to subrogation are arising, it is not easy to find subrogation arbitration system to handle them clearly. The main issue is an availability of subrogation arbitration in case of the dispute which the insurer requests the arbitration against the carrier according to the arbitration clause of Bill of Lading. The direct parties of arbitration clause of the B/L are the carrier and the holder of the B/L. Could the insurer get the position of the arbitration party in stead of the holder of the B/L after compensation if there was an accident of insurance on the way of carriage? Even though there are a few arbitral awards of subrogation, the reason of the eligibility of subrogation arbitration is not enough. This paper scrutinized precedent research papers, arbitration awards, judicial precedents, and the Automobile Subrogation Arbitration System. Vague dispute resolution system which burden corporations with so many costs must be not good for business. In the view of economic efficiency, blank of contract, reciprocality, and Coase Theorem, it is recommended that subrogation arbitration system for the international trade would be better focus on the hypothesis of "Firm Offer Character of Arbitration Clause."

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.21 no.8
• /
• pp.305-314
• /
• 2021

According to the recent judgment of Supreme Court, in case when the National Health Insurance Service pays the insurance to a victim of torts, and then subrogate the victim's claim for damages, the scope of institution's subrogation should be limited to the amount of the assailant's responsibility rate of the institution charge, and the amount of compensation claimed by the victim to the assailant should be calculated in the method of contributory negligence after deduction. The court has judged that the institution could subrogate the whole amount of institution charge in the limit of assailant's damages, and the method of deduction after contributory negligence should be applied when calculating the assailant's damages to the victim. Supreme Court decision is greatly significant in the aspect of harmonizing the nature of health insurance as property right and social insurance as the beneficiaries could get additional supplement, and also seeking the balance between insurer and beneficiary. With the changed legal principles of Supreme Court in the scope of institution subrogation like this, the necessities to complement the litigation relation, legislation, and institution were suggested.

• 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 Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.63-74
• /
• 2012

The Korean Conflict of Laws Act recently incorporated much of the European Union's recent revision in "EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980)"(hereinafter Rome Convention). With the revision of Rome Convention applied to contractual obligations,"Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)"(hereinafter Rome I) has taken effect on December 2009. Before the effectivation of Rome I, "Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)"(hereinafter Rome II) has come into effect on January 2009. This means the revision of certain rules and its practical implications need an in-depth study on governing law rules under Rome I which provides newly effected governing laws applicable to contractual obligations. Moreover, uniform choice of law rules on non-contractual obligations needs to focus especially on marine insurance contract. Where policy assignment and subrogation causes, how to decide the governing law which will be applied to the insurer as a third party? This article attempts to analyze emerging legal issues in legal regimes determining choice of law, especially those in international marine insurance contracts. This will help Korean practitioners to be dialed in legal affairs under English Law as the governing law in their contracts.

• 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.