무보험자동차상해보험을 체결한 중복보험자의 대위행사 범위 : 대법원 2023.6.1. 선고 2019다237586 판결을 중심으로

Abstract

In scenarios where a victim of a car accident is covered by multiple uninsured motorist insurance policies, if one of the double insurers, acting as the representative insurer (hereafter referred to as 'RI'), fully compensates the victim's total loss, the RI possesses indemnity rights under double insurance contracts against the other double insurers. Furthermore, apart from this, the RI also holds subrogation rights under the insurer's subrogation against the wrongdoer of the accident. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has embraced the reasoning of preceding analogous cases, confirming that the extent of subrogation rights, exercisable by the RI against the wrongdoer, is proportionate to the actual amount each double insurer has borne concerning the insurance payment made to the victim, up to the wrongdoer's liability amount. Nevertheless, disparities exist between this Supreme Court ruling and prior cases, necessitating multiple double insurers to individually initiate subrogation lawsuits against the wrongdoer, which can be deemed inefficient from a litigation economy standpoint. Therefore, exploring alternative solutions may prove beneficial. The subrogation right held by the RI against the wrongdoer and the indemnity right against other double insurers are distinct and separate rights. Additionally, the decision on which right to exercise and against whom first lies within the insurer's discretion. Furthermore, by settling indemnity rights based on double insurance and resolving subrogation claims among the RI and other double insurers, the same effect as the court ruling can be achieved. Therefore, in contrast to this Supreme Court ruling, it can be contended that invoking the RI's subrogation claim in full within the scope of the wrongdoer's liability amount does not contradict the subrogation principles of insurance or reimbursement among double insurers. This interpretation aligns with relevant legal principles and is more efficient from a litigation economy perspective, minimizing social costs and alleviating the undue burden on the wrongdoer through a single lawsuit.