In an accident in which there was major damage, the Supreme Court ruled that if the liability insurance limit of the perpetrator was small and could not cover all the damages, the victim's right to claim insurance takes precedence over the right of the insurer.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Cho Jae-yeon) quashed the original judgment that ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the compensation claim lawsuit filed by Hanwha General Insurance against Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance and DB General Insurance.

The lawsuit stemmed from a fire incident at a chemical processing plant in Incheon on April 13, 2018.

Several companies in the same industrial park suffered a total of an estimated damage of 2.3 billion won.

Company A, which operated the factory, only had liability insurance with a limit of 300 million won each from three insurance companies, including Samsung Fire & Rescue and DB Sonbo, so it was far short of compensating for all the damages.

Hanwha Sonbo was the insurer of the affected companies.

Accordingly, 130 million won was paid to the affected companies first, and then a claim was made against the insurance companies of Company A.

However, Samsung Fire & Fire and DB Sonbo also have other affected companies as subscribers, so Samsung Fire & Fire had already paid 1.6 billion won and DB Sonbo had already paid 300 million won.

Samsung Fire & Rescue and DB Sonbo claimed that the insurance money had been exhausted by the fact that they were in the dual position of being on the side of the perpetrator and on the side of the victim.

The logic is that as the liability insurance company of Company A, it has a debt to compensate the victim within the limit of 300 million won, but since it has a bond to claim compensation from Company A for the amount of insurance of more than 300 million won given to the affected company, the bond and debt have been offset.

It was cited on the basis of a provision in the Civil Code that if a bond and a debt belong to the same person, they shall be extinguished.

The 1st and 2nd Sims supported Hanwha Sonbo's hand.

Due to the fact that the number of subscribers coincided, the limited share was reduced to Samsung Fire· DB Sonbo said it was unfair to take it first, and ruled that he should pay 130 million won.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court should have looked at "cases in which the victim claims compensation directly" and ordered a new trial.

Plaintiff Hanwha Sonbo and Defendant Samsung Fire & Rescue· Both DB Sonbo advocate the right to seek redress based on the insurance money already paid, but in cases where it is difficult to recover all damages, the victim must first guarantee the right to receive the liability insurance payment directly.

The Supreme Court stated that "if an insurer makes a claim on behalf of the victims, they cannot receive the benefit in preference to the other victims exercising their right to direct claims" and that "after the insurance payment has been made to the victims, they can only be paid if there is any remaining amount in the liability insurance limit."

However, the Supreme Court held that if neither victim directly exercised their claims, the debts of Samsung Fire & Fire and DB Sonbo could be considered extinguished.

Therefore, before determining whether the bonds and debts have been extinguished, the amount of damages suffered by the affected companies that directly exercised their claims, and the amount of damages to Hanwha Sonbo, Samsung Fire & Rescue, etc. The Supreme Court ruled that the scope of DB Sonbo's claims should be heard first.

A Supreme Court official explained, "For the first time, it has been explicitly stated that in principle, the direct claim of the victim takes precedence when the direct claim of the victim and the claim of the insurer compete because the liability insurance limit does not reach the sum of the damages of multiple victims."

(Photo=Yonhap News)