Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Whom the building part of a fire insurance contract is for
Supreme Court, Nov. 20, 2025, 2023Da209984 (judgment)
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a damage insurance contract specifies only the subject matter and the kind of risk, with the insured and the insurable interest unclear, how is it decided whether the contract is for the policyholder itself or for another person, and how does that bear on the insurer's subrogation of the building owner's claim for damages for non-performance under Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act?
Holding
It is decided by weighing the policy document, the standard clauses the parties adopted as its content, the circumstances and course of conclusion, and the insurer's handling practice. On these facts, no material showed the tenant responsible for the fire, the insurer treated the building damage as fire damage and paid the building owner, and the documents drawn up after the fire named the owner as victim and as insured, so the building part was likely a contract for the owner although some documents recorded the tenant as insured. Whether the insurer may acquire by subrogation, under Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act, the owner's claim for damages for non-performance against the contractor depends on whether the building part was concluded for the owner, which the court below must examine on remand.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
손해보험에서 보험의 목적물과 위험의 종류만이 정해져 있고 피보험자와 피보험이익이 명확하지 않은 경우에 그 보험계약이 보험계약자 자신을 위한 것인지 아니면 타인을 위한 것인지는 보험계약서 및 당사자가 보험계약의 내용으로 삼은 약관의 내용, 당사자가 보험계약을 체결하게 된 경위와 그 과정, 보험회사의 실무처리 관행 등 여러 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In non-life insurance, where only the subject matter of insurance and the type of risk are specified and the insured and the insurable interest are not clear, whether the insurance contract is one for the insurance contractor himself or one for another person must be determined by taking into consideration the contents of the insurance contract and the standard terms and conditions that the parties adopted as the contents of the insurance contract, the circumstances and the process by which the parties came to conclude the insurance contract, the practices of the insurance company in handling such matters, and various other circumstances.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 건물 손해에 관한 보험자대위청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the insurer's subrogation claim with respect to the building damage is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
을 회사 역시 건물 부분의 손해를 보상하는 보험금청구권은 병에게 직접 귀속된다고 인식하였을 가능성이 높은 점 등 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면
Unofficial English translation
in view of the circumstances, taken as a whole, including that it is highly likely that Company B also recognized that the claim to the insurance money indemnifying the damage to the building portion directly accrued to C
Factors
- 건물 임차인인 을 회사에 위 화재에 대한 책임을 인정할 만한 자료가 없고
- 갑 회사는 건물 부분의 손해를 ‘화재손해’로 보아 이에 대한 보험금을 건물 소유자인 병에게 지급한 사정에 비추어
- 화재보험금으로 볼 여지가 충분한 점
- 을 회사 역시 건물 부분의 손해를 보상하는 보험금청구권은 병에게 직접 귀속된다고 인식하였을 가능성이 높은 점
Unofficial English translation
• there is no material sufficient to acknowledge that Company B, the lessee of the building, bears liability for the fire, and
• in light of the circumstances that company A regarded the damage to the building portion as 'fire damage' and paid the insurance money therefor to C, the owner of the building,
• there is ample room for regarding it as fire insurance money,
• it is highly likely that Company B also recognized that the claim to the insurance money indemnifying the damage to the building portion directly accrued to C
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2003. 1. 24. 선고 2002다33496 판결(공2003상, 714), 대법원 2009. 12. 10. 선고 2009다56603, 56610 판결(공2010상, 105)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33496 decided January 24, 2003 (Gong 2003 Sang, 714), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da56603, 56610 decided December 10, 2009 (Gong 2010 Sang, 105)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2003. 1. 24. 선고 2002다33496 판결(공2003상, 714), 대법원 2009. 12. 10. 선고 2009다56603, 56610 판결(공2010상, 105)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the policy document expressly names the tenant as the insured for the building part, can the surrounding circumstances still show that the contract was concluded for the building owner?
The judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on remand, deciding for whom the building part of the contract was concluded and whether the insurer acquired by subrogation the owner's claims, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 639, Article 665, Article 682(1), Article 683 or Article 719 of the Commercial Act would as well.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “건물 임차인인 을 회사에 위 화재에 대한 책임을 인정할 만한 자료가 없고 / 갑 회사는 건물 부분의 손해를 ‘화재손해’로 보아 이에 대한 보험금을 건물 소유자인 병에게 지급한 사정에 비추어 / 화재보험금으로 볼 여지가 충분한 점 / 을 회사 역시 건물 부분의 손해를 보상하는 보험금청구권은 병에게 직접 귀속된다고 인식하였을 가능성이 높은 점” vs Independent “보험계약서 및 당사자가 보험계약의 내용으로 삼은 약관의 내용 / 당사자가 보험계약을 체결하게 된 경위와 그 과정 / 보험회사의 실무처리 관행”
The primary reading lists specific facts about fire responsibility, payment, and the tenant's understanding, whereas the independent reading lists general interpretive factors concerning contract documents, formation, and insurer practices.
보험계약서 및 당사자가 보험계약의 내용으로 삼은 약관의 내용Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the policy document expressly names the tenant as the insured for the building part, can the surrounding circumstances still show that the contract was concluded for the building owner?” vs Independent “Will further examination establish that the owner was the insured under the building coverage and that the insurer acquired the owner's damages claim against the contractor?”
The primary reading asks whether surrounding circumstances can overcome an express designation of the tenant, whereas the independent reading asks what further examination will establish about the owner's insured status and subrogation.
손해보험에서 보험의 목적물과 위험의 종류만이 정해져 있고 피보험자와 피보험이익이 명확하지 않은 경우에 그 보험계약이 보험계약자 자신을 위한 것인지 아니면 타인을 위한 것인지는 보험계약서 및 당사자가 보험계약의 내용으로 삼은 약관의 내용, 당사자가 보험계약을 체결하게 된 경위와 그 과정, 보험회사의 실무처리 관행 등 여러 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 10 January 2023 (2021Na68607), held that the defendant could bear liability for damages for non-performance for the fire, that the holder of the claim against it was the building owner as employer under the construction contract, and that the policyholder and the insured under the insurance contract were the tenant. It held that the insurer's payment of the building loss gave it only the tenant's right, acquired by subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, and that there was no basis whatever for acquiring the owner's right.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the mere recording of the tenant as insured in some documents did not establish an insurable interest in the building, and that the building part was likely an insurance contract for the owner. It held that the court below had misapprehended the law on insurance for the benefit of another and had failed to examine the clauses the parties adopted, the circumstances in which the contract was concluded over the owner's building as well as the tenant's stock, the process by which the payment was made to the owner, and the insurer's handling practice. Because the claim in tort was joined alternatively with the claim for damages for non-performance, both parts were reversed and the case was sent back to the Seoul Central District Court; the appeal on the inventory loss was dismissed, as the appellant stated no grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the policy document, the clauses the parties adopted, the circumstances of conclusion and the insurer's handling practice show that the building part was concluded for the policyholder itself.
- A case in which the insured and the insurable interest are clear, since the stated standard applies only where the subject matter and the kind of risk alone are specified.
- A case in which the insurer paid the building loss because the policyholder bore damages liability to the building owner, so that the payment did not compensate the owner's own fire loss.
Record verification notes
Set the policy document and the clauses the parties adopted against the fire certificate application, the claim form and the record of who received the building payment, since the Court read them together rather than relying on the entry naming the insured alone. Check whether the tenant objected to that entry or to that payment, and what showed that the insurer treated the building damage as fire damage. Keep the inventory loss claim separate, as its appeal was dismissed for want of stated grounds, and confirm that the claim in tort was joined alternatively with the claim for damages for non-performance before relying on the scope of the reversal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 손해보험에서 보험의 목적물과 위험의 종류만이 정해져 있고 피보험자와 피보험이익이 명확하지 않은 경우, 피보험자를 결정하는 기준 [2] 갑 보험회사와 을 주식회사 사이에 을 회사가 상품 보관창고로 사용하고 있는 병 소유 건물 및 이에 보관된 상품 일체를 보험목적물로 하는 보험계약이 체결된 후에 병이 정 주식회사와 위 건물 지붕에 태양광 발전소를 건립하는 건설도급계약을 체결하여 그중 태양광 모듈 장착을 위한 구조물 공사가 무 주식회사 등을 거쳐 기에게 순차로 하도급되었는데, 기가 고용한 용접공이 위 건물의 창고 지붕에 올라가 용접작업을 하고 있던 중 창고 내에서 화재가 발생하여 보관창고와 그 안에 보관되어 있던 상품들이 소훼되는 사고가 발생하자, 갑 회사가 건물 손해에 관하여 병에게 보험금을 지급한 다음 정 회사를 상대로 상법 제682조 제1항에 따라 병의 정 회사에 대한 채무불이행에 따른 손해배상청구권 등을 대위 행사한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 위 보험계약 중 건물 부분은 타인인 건물 소유자 병을 위한 보험계약으로 볼 여지가 큰데도, 이에 관한 심리를 제대로 하지 않은 채 위 건물 부분의 피보험자를 을 회사로 보아 갑 회사는 피보험자가 아닌 병의 정 회사에 대한 채무불이행에 따른 손해배상청구권을 대위 취득할 수 없다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] In non-life insurance, where only the subject matter of insurance and the type of risk are specified and the insured and the insurable interest are not clear, the criteria for determining the insured [2] A case where, after an insurance contract was concluded between insurance company A and Company B under which the building owned by C and used by Company B as a warehouse for storing goods, together with all the goods stored therein, constituted the subject matter of insurance, C entered into a construction contract with Company D for the construction of a solar power plant on the roof of the building, and the structural work for installing the solar modules thereamong was subcontracted in turn through Company E and others to F, and when a welder employed by F was performing welding work on the roof of the warehouse of the building, a fire broke out inside the warehouse, causing the warehouse and the goods stored therein to be destroyed, whereupon company A paid the insurance money to C in respect of the damage to the building and then exercised by subrogation against Company D C's right to claim damages arising from Company D's breach of obligation, etc. pursuant to Article 682 paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act, in which the court below held, without properly examining the matter, that the insured under the building portion of the insurance contract was Company B and that accordingly company A could not acquire by subrogation the right to claim damages arising from Company D's breach of obligation owed to C, who was not the insured, notwithstanding that, in light of the circumstances, there was substantial room for regarding the building portion of the insurance contract as an insurance contract for the benefit of another person, namely C, the owner of the building, and the judgment of the court below was held to contain an error such as a misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 손해보험에서 보험의 목적물과 위험의 종류만이 정해져 있고 피보험자와 피보험이익이 명확하지 않은 경우에 그 보험계약이 보험계약자 자신을 위한 것인지 아니면 타인을 위한 것인지는 보험계약서 및 당사자가 보험계약의 내용으로 삼은 약관의 내용, 당사자가 보험계약을 체결하게 된 경위와 그 과정, 보험회사의 실무처리 관행 등 여러 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 한다. [2] 갑 보험회사와 을 주식회사 사이에 을 회사가 상품 보관창고로 사용하고 있는 병 소유 건물 및 이에 보관된 상품 일체를 보험목적물로 하는 보험계약이 체결된 후에 병이 정 주식회사와 위 건물 지붕에 태양광 발전소를 건립하는 건설도급계약을 체결하여 그중 태양광 모듈 장착을 위한 구조물 공사가 무 주식회사 등을 거쳐 기에게 순차로 하도급되었는데, 기가 고용한 용접공이 위 건물의 창고 지붕에 올라가 용접작업을 하고 있던 중 창고 내에서 화재가 발생하여 보관창고와 그 안에 보관되어 있던 상품들이 소훼되는 사고가 발생하자, 갑 회사가 건물 손해에 관하여 병에게 보험금을 지급한 다음 정 회사를 상대로 상법 제682조 제1항에 따라 병의 정 회사에 대한 채무불이행에 따른 손해배상청구권 등을 대위 행사한 사안에서, ① 건물 임차인인 을 회사에 위 화재에 대한 책임을 인정할 만한 자료가 없고, 갑 회사는 건물 부분의 손해를 ‘화재손해’로 보아 이에 대한 보험금을 건물 소유자인 병에게 지급한 사정에 비추어 갑 회사가 지급한 건물 손해에 관한 보험금은 을 회사가 병에게 임대차목적물 반환의무의 이행불능 등에 따른 손해배상책임을 부담하기 때문에 지급된 것이 아니라 건물 소유자인 병이 위 화재로 입은 손해를 보상하기 위하여 지급된 것, 즉 화재보험금으로 볼 여지가 충분한 점, ② 화재 발생 이후 작성된 화재증명원 발급신청서, 보험금청구서 등에 병이 화재 피해자나 보험계약의 피보험자로 기재되어 있고, 건물 손해에 관한 보험금을 병이 갑 회사에 직접 청구를 하여 지급받았는데 을 회사가 이에 대해 이의를 제기하였다고 볼 만한 자료가 없는 사정에 비추어, 을 회사 역시 건물 부분의 손해를 보상하는 보험금청구권은 병에게 직접 귀속된다고 인식하였을 가능성이 높은 점 등 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 위 보험계약 중 건물 부분은 타인인 건물 소유자 병을 위한 보험계약으로 볼 여지가 큰데도, 이에 관한 심리를 제대로 하지 않은 채 위 건물 부분의 피보험자를 을 회사로 보아 갑 회사는 피보험자가 아닌 병의 정 회사에 대한 채무불이행에 따른 손해배상청구권을 대위 취득할 수 없다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 건물 손해에 관한 보험자대위청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the insurer's subrogation claim with respect to the building damage is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제639조, 제665조 / [2] 상법 제639조, 제665조, 제682조 제1항, 제683조, 제719조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger