자동차보험 약관의 대물배상 지급기준에서 대차료 인정범위에 관한 고찰 - 부산지법 2021. 2. 18. 선고 2020나53231 판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Due to the revision of the automobile standard clauses in 2016, the standard for payment of the cost of rental car in property damage liability insurance was changed. It was changed from ‘a vehicle of the same type’ to ‘a vehicle of the same class’(a vehicle of the same class means a vehicle with similar engine displacement and year), the contents shall be paid the minimum fee for the equivalent vehicle. The reason for the revision of the automobile standard clauses is that moral hazard and excess profit have occurred to the victim. The target judgment is a legal judgment on the validity of the revised clauses. Specifically, it is a judgment as to whether lending a vehicle of ‘the same type’ rather than ‘the same class’ limits the rights of victims. In addition, it is a judgment as to whether it is contrary to the legal principle of compensation for damages under civil law, and furthermore, whether it is contrary to the compensation principle of non-life insurance. The appellate court ruled that the appropriate range of cost of rental car borne by the insurance company was the usual cost required to lease vehicles of the same type and class, that is, reasonable market price. Also, it was judged that the standard for payment of the cost of rental car under the automobile standard clauses did not bind the victim or the court, denied the effect of the revised standard for payment of the cost of rental car. I can't agree with the conclusion of the target judgment. The reason is as follows. First, in applying the legal principles based on tort liability, of course, the principle of good faith should be applied between the perpetrator and the victim. Therefore, it is contrary to the civil law's obligation to reduce damages for the victim to claim excessive cost of rental car than repair cost. Second, the court's conclusion is contrary to the principle of indemnity, which is the core principle of non-life insurance. Third, the cost of rental car exceeding the usual repair cost is not a ordinary damage because it is a loss increased by the victim's choice. Therefore, the insurer does not need to compensate. In the future, as in the current automobile standard clauses, the court should lead to a forward-looking change in judgment so that the reasonable cost required to lend the damaged vehicle and the same class domestic vehicle can be recognized as a reasonable cost of rental car.