Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Subrogation against a tenant whose own policy covered its liability
Supreme Court, Nov. 20, 2025, 2024Da324200 (judgment)
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When an insurer that paid the owner's insurance money claims subrogation against the tenant under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, must the owner already hold a damages claim against the tenant, and may the subrogation be exercised where the tenant's own policy included liability insurance covering the tenant's liability for the fire?
Holding
Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act presupposes that the policyholder or insured already has a claim for damages against the third party, and the insurer takes that claim only up to the amount of the insurance money it paid. The direct claim under Article 724(2) is the result of the insurer overlappingly assuming the insured's damages debt, so the insurer's debt and the insured's debt to the victim are concurrent obligations for one purpose. Here the owner's loss had been fully indemnified, the tenant's ultimate liability was smaller than the tenant-policy insurance money, and if the tenant's policy covered the tenant's liability it is difficult to view the insurer as able to subrogate against the tenant on the strength of the owner's insurance money alone.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이는 보험계약자 또는 피보험자 등의 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권이 있음을 전제로 하여 보험자가 지급한 보험금액의 한도에서 그 청구권을 취득한다는 취지이다.
Unofficial English translation
This means that, premised on the existence of a right to claim damages of the policyholder or the insured, etc. against a third party, the insurer acquires that claim to the extent of the amount of insurance money paid by the insurer.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
임차인 보험계약이 책임보험계약을 포함하고 있는지, 만약 그렇다면 책임보험계약에 따라 병 회사가 화재사고로 부담하는 배상책임도 갑 회사에 의하여 보상되는지 등에 관하여 제대로 심리하지 않은 채
Unofficial English translation
without properly examining issues such as whether the lessee's insurance contract includes a liability insurance contract and, if so, whether the liability for compensation borne by C Corporation under the fire accident is also indemnified by company A under the liability insurance contract
Factors
- 을이 화재사고로 입은 손해가 임차인 보험금, 소유자 보험금 등의 지급으로 모두 전보되었고
- 병 회사가 을에게 종국적으로 배상하여야 할 손해배상의 액수는 전체 손해액의 60%에 해당하는 금액으로 임차인 보험금보다 적은 점
- 갑 회사가 을에게 지급한 임차인 보험금이 임차인 보험계약의 책임보험자 지위에서 지급한 것이라면 그 범위 내에서 을의 갑 회사에 대한 상법 제724조 제2항에 따른 손해배상채권은 만족을 얻게 되고 특별한 사정이 없는 한 을의 병 회사에 대한 손해배상채권도 그 목적을 달성하여 소멸하는 점
- 갑 회사가 임차인 보험금을 화재보험자 지위에서 지급하였더라도 책임보험자 지위를 겸하는 이상 마찬가지인 점
Unofficial English translation
• the damage suffered by B in the fire accident was fully indemnified by the payment of the lessee's insurance money, the owner's insurance money, etc., and
• the amount of damages that C Corporation must ultimately compensate to B corresponds to 60% of the total amount of damage, which is less than the lessee's insurance money;
• if the lessee's insurance money paid by company A to B was paid in its capacity as liability insurer under the lessee's insurance contract, then, within that scope, B's claim for damages against company A under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act is satisfied and, absent special circumstances, B's claim for damages against C Corporation also achieves its purpose and is extinguished; and
• even if company A paid the lessee's insurance money in its capacity as fire insurer, the same applies insofar as it also holds the capacity of liability insurer.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1999. 2. 12. 선고 98다44956 판결(공1999상, 527)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 98Da44956 decided February 12, 1999 (Gong 1999 Sang, 527)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1981. 7. 7. 선고 80다1643 판결(공1981, 14150), 대법원 1993. 6. 29. 선고 93다1770 판결(공1993하, 2132) / [2] 대법원 1999. 2. 12. 선고 98다44956 판결(공1999상, 527), 대법원 2010. 10. 28. 선고 2010다53754 판결(공2010하, 2172), 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2018다234177 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the tenant's liability to the owner exceeds the KRW 500 million liability insurance limit, how much of the owner-insurer's subrogation claim against the tenant survives?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court, once it finds whether the tenant policy included the fire liability special clause and whether the tenant-policy insurance money was paid as liability insurance, will show how the bar operates. Any amendment to Article 682(1) or Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the tenant's liability to the owner exceeds the KRW 500 million liability insurance limit, how much of the owner-insurer's subrogation claim against the tenant survives?” vs Independent “Did the tenant policy include liability coverage that covered the tenant's damages liability for this fire?”
The primary assumes liability coverage and asks how much of the subrogation claim survives above the 500 million won limit. The independent asks whether the tenant policy covered the fire liability at all.
이는 보험계약자 또는 피보험자 등의 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권이 있음을 전제로 하여 보험자가 지급한 보험금액의 한도에서 그 청구권을 취득한다는 취지이다.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 26 November 2024 (2024Na7306), held that the defendant tenant had to compensate under Article 390 of the Civil Act the loss the owner suffered in the fire, but that its liability should be limited to 60% of the total loss, KRW 418,544,949. Since the rest of the owner's total loss had been indemnified by the tenant policy and the security company's insurance, and the remaining KRW 203,131,307 by the owner's policy, it held that the plaintiff insurer could exercise subrogation under Article 682 against the tenant for the part of that KRW 203,131,307 corresponding to the tenant's liability ratio.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act presupposes the owner's damages claim against the third party, and that where the tenant policy included liability insurance covering the tenant's liability, it is difficult to view the insurer as able to exercise subrogation against the tenant on the strength of the owner's insurance money alone. The tenant's ultimate liability of KRW 418,544,949 was smaller than the tenant-policy insurance money of KRW 491,820,569, so once that sum was paid in the insurer's capacity as liability insurer, the owner's claim against the tenant was attained and extinguished absent special circumstances; even if paid as fire insurer the same followed, because the insurer also held the liability insurer's position. It found that the court below had misunderstood the law on insurance subrogation and failed to hold the necessary hearing, and reversed the whole judgment for remand.
Distinguishing conditions
- A tenant policy that contains no liability insurance covering the tenant's liability for damage to the owner's property by fire.
- Special circumstances in the internal relationship between the liability insurer and the insured, on which the decision relied in finding the tenant's debt extinguished.
- An owner's loss that was not fully indemnified by insurance money and other insurance, so that a damages claim for the unpaid remainder subsists.
Record verification notes
Set the clauses of the tenant policy, above all the fire liability special clause and its KRW 500 million liability limit as recorded in the loss adjuster's report, against the question whether that policy covered the tenant's liability. Then total every sum paid to the owner, KRW 491,820,569 under the tenant policy, KRW 203,131,307 under the owner's policy and KRW 2,623,040 under the security company's policy, against the building loss of KRW 697,574,916, and compare the tenant's 60% share of KRW 418,544,949 with the tenant-policy insurance money of KRW 491,820,569.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 상법 제682조 제1항에서 정한 ‘제3자에 대한 보험대위’가 보험계약자 또는 피보험자 등의 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권이 있음을 전제로 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 상법 제724조 제2항에 의하여 피해자에게 인정되는 직접청구권의 법적 성질(=손해배상채무의 중첩적 인수) 및 이때 보험자의 손해배상채무와 피보험자의 손해배상채무의 관계(=연대채무) [3] 갑 보험회사가 을과는 을 소유의 건물 및 시설을 보험목적물로 하는 보험계약(소유자 보험계약)을, 위 건물을 임차하여 식자재 유통마트를 운영하는 병 주식회사와는 위 건물 및 병 회사 소유 시설 등을 보험목적물로 하는 보험계약(임차인 보험계약)을 체결하였는데, 이후 병 회사 유통마트의 수산물코너에서 화재가 발생하여 위 건물의 구조재 및 마감재 일체가 소손되는 사고가 발생하자, 갑 회사가 을에게 임차인 보험계약에 따른 보험금(임차인 보험금)과 소유자 보험계약에 따른 보험금(소유자 보험금)을 지급한 다음 병 회사를 상대로 소유자 보험금 지급을 이유로 상법 제682조에 따라 보험자대위권을 행사한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 갑 회사와 병 회사 사이에 체결된 임차인 보험계약에 병 회사의 손해배상책임을 보상하는 책임보험계약이 포함되어 있다면 갑 회사가 소유자 보험금 지급을 이유로 병 회사에 대하여 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 있다고 보기 어려운데도, 임차인 보험계약이 책임보험계약을 포함하고 있는지, 만약 그렇다면 책임보험계약에 따라 병 회사가 화재사고로 부담하는 배상책임도 갑 회사에 의하여 보상되는지 등에 관하여 제대로 심리하지 않은 채 갑 회사가 병 회사를 상대로 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 있다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the 'subrogation against a third party' prescribed in Article 682 (1) of the Commercial Act is premised on the existence of a right to claim damages of the policyholder or the insured, etc. against a third party (affirmative) [2] The legal nature of the direct claim recognized in favor of the victim under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act (= cumulative assumption of the obligation for damages) and, in that case, the relationship between the insurer's obligation for damages and the insured's obligation for damages (= joint and several obligations) [3] In a case where insurance company A entered into with B an insurance contract designating the building and facilities owned by B as the object of insurance (owner's insurance contract), and with C Corporation, which leased the above building and operated a food distribution mart, an insurance contract designating the above building and the facilities owned by C Corporation, etc. as the object of insurance (lessee's insurance contract), and where, after a fire occurred in the seafood corner of C Corporation's distribution mart and an accident ensued in which all the structural and finishing materials of the above building were destroyed by fire, company A paid B the insurance money under the lessee's insurance contract (lessee's insurance money) and the insurance money under the owner's insurance contract (owner's insurance money), and then exercised the right of subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act against C Corporation on the ground of payment of the owner's insurance money, it is difficult to regard that company A may exercise the right of subrogation of the insurer against C Corporation on the ground of payment of the owner's insurance money if, in light of all the circumstances, the lessee's insurance contract entered into between company A and C Corporation includes a liability insurance contract indemnifying C Corporation's liability for damages; yet the court below held that company A may exercise the right of subrogation of the insurer against C Corporation without properly examining issues such as whether the lessee's insurance contract includes a liability insurance contract and, if so, whether the liability for compensation borne by C Corporation under the fire accident is also indemnified by company A under the liability insurance contract. A case holding that the judgment of the court below is erroneous, including misapprehension of legal principles.
Summary of the holding
[1] 상법 제682조 제1항은 ‘제3자에 대한 보험대위’라는 표제하에 손해가 제3자의 행위로 인하여 발생한 경우에 보험금을 지급한 보험자는 그 지급한 금액의 한도에서 그 제3자에 대한 보험계약자 또는 피보험자의 권리를 취득한다고 규정하고 있다. 이는 보험계약자 또는 피보험자 등의 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권이 있음을 전제로 하여 보험자가 지급한 보험금액의 한도에서 그 청구권을 취득한다는 취지이다. [2] 상법 제724조 제2항에 의하여 피해자에게 인정되는 직접청구권의 법적 성질은 보험자가 피보험자의 피해자에 대한 손해배상채무를 중첩적으로 인수한 결과 피해자가 보험자에 대하여 가지게 된 손해배상청구권이고, 이에 따라 피해자에 대해 보험자가 지게 되는 손해배상채무와 피보험자의 손해배상채무는 모두 피해자에 대한 손해배상이라는 단일한 목적을 위하여 존재하는 것으로서 연대채무관계에 있다. [3] 갑 보험회사가 을과는 을 소유의 건물 및 시설을 보험목적물로 하는 보험계약(이하 ‘소유자 보험계약’이라 한다)을, 위 건물을 임차하여 식자재 유통마트를 운영하는 병 주식회사와는 위 건물 및 병 회사 소유 시설 등을 보험목적물로 하는 보험계약(이하 ‘임차인 보험계약’이라 한다)을 체결하였는데, 이후 병 회사 유통마트의 수산물코너에서 화재가 발생하여 위 건물의 구조재 및 마감재 일체가 소손되는 사고가 발생하자, 갑 회사가 을에게 임차인 보험계약에 따른 보험금(이하 ‘임차인 보험금’이라 한다)과 소유자 보험계약에 따른 보험금(이하 ‘소유자 보험금’이라 한다)을 지급한 다음 병 회사를 상대로 소유자 보험금 지급을 이유로 상법 제682조에 따라 보험자대위권을 행사한 사안에서, ① 을이 화재사고로 입은 손해가 임차인 보험금, 소유자 보험금 등의 지급으로 모두 전보되었고, 병 회사가 을에게 종국적으로 배상하여야 할 손해배상의 액수는 전체 손해액의 60%에 해당하는 금액으로 임차인 보험금보다 적은 점, ② 갑 회사가 을에게 지급한 임차인 보험금이 임차인 보험계약의 책임보험자 지위에서 지급한 것이라면 그 범위 내에서 을의 갑 회사에 대한 상법 제724조 제2항에 따른 손해배상채권은 만족을 얻게 되고 특별한 사정이 없는 한 을의 병 회사에 대한 손해배상채권도 그 목적을 달성하여 소멸하는 점, ③ 이는 갑 회사가 임차인 보험금을 화재보험자 지위에서 지급하였더라도 책임보험자 지위를 겸하는 이상 마찬가지인 점 등 제반 사정에 비추어 보면, 갑 회사와 병 회사 사이에 체결된 임차인 보험계약에 병 회사의 손해배상책임을 보상하는 책임보험계약이 포함되어 있다면 갑 회사가 소유자 보험금 지급을 이유로 병 회사에 대하여 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 있다고 보기 어려운데도, 임차인 보험계약이 책임보험계약을 포함하고 있는지, 만약 그렇다면 책임보험계약에 따라 병 회사가 화재사고로 부담하는 배상책임도 갑 회사에 의하여 보상되는지 등에 관하여 제대로 심리하지 않은 채 갑 회사가 병 회사를 상대로 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 있다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제682조 제1항 / [2] 상법 제724조 제2항, 민법 제413조, 제454조 / [3] 상법 제682조 제1항, 제683조, 제719조, 제724조 제2항, 민법 제413조, 제454조
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