상법 제724조 제2항에 의한직접청구권의 법적성질- 대법원 2019.1.17. 선고 2018다245702 판결의 손해배상청구 판례중심 -

Abstract

In this paper, the legal nature of the direct claim under Article 724 (2) of theCommercial Act was investigated, focusing on precedents in the right to claimdamages in the Supreme Court 2019, January 17, 2018 Da245702 judgment. In addition, in the above article, the Supreme Court precedent regarding theregulation that allows the insurer to directly claim damages incurred by the insuredin the event of an accident that would cause the victim to be liable or theperpetrator for the legal nature of the third party’s direct claim right, within the limitof the insurance payment agreement. We checked whether it is showing. However, the precedent is that the insurer and the insured have a joint liabilityrelationship between the insurer and the insured because it is an insurance that theinsurer and the insured acquired concurrently with respect to the damages liabilityaccording to the deduction contract. It can also be seen that the legal nature of the right to claim direct claimsrecognized by the victim pursuant to Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act is thatthe insurer has concurrently taken over the insured’s liability for damages against thevictim, and that the victim has the right to claim damages against the insurer. Onthe other hand, it shows that the precedent is being explained in terms of the rightto claim damages and the right to claim insurance money. However, although thereare disputes in the theory, it can be seen that the above precedent is in accordancewith the right to claim damages, which indicates that liability insurance shouldprotect third parties as much as possible. As such, it is intended to report that the case of the Supreme Court of Korea is that the insurer has taken over the insurer’sliability for damages against the insured’s victim in parallel, and the insurer’s directclaim is a modification of the insurance claim right or equivalent.It can be seen thatit is judged not to be a right. However, when looking at the judgment issued by thesentencing judgment, there is no mention of any grounds for which the court madethis judgment or the reasonable justification of the judgment. Obviously, in the directclaim for the right to claim damages, the direct claim is regarded as the insurer’scoexistence of the insured’s liability for damages. Therefore, it can be seen that the insured and the insurer stipulate that it is ajoint debt relationship that bears the same debt In addition, in the matter of applyingthe law of direct claim, which is a problem under Article 724 of the CommercialAct, the problem must be resolved by considering various factors.