Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Subrogation scope computed per insured object and insured interest
Supreme Court, Sept. 26, 2025, 2025Da211931 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where one fire insurance contract covers a leased building owned by another person together with the policyholder's own fixtures, furniture and chattels, must the scope of the insurer's subrogation under Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act be fixed for each insured object according to the insured interest?
Holding
Yes. The insurer takes the policyholder's or the insured's rights against the third party within the limit of the insurance money it paid, based on the insured interest that is the object of the contract, and where the insured objects carry different insureds and different insured interests the scope must be fixed for each object; fire insurance is in principle not liability insurance. The cover for the building was likely insurance for another, taken out by the lessee policyholder for the owner, so the subrogation obtained on the building insurance money had to be measured against the building alone, and measuring it against the total loss of all the insured objects was a misreading of the law. The Court left standing the part of the judgment below that refused subrogation on the insurance money for the fixtures, furniture and chattels, because the defendant's liability share did not reach the policyholder's remaining loss.
Points at issue, verbatim
‘건물’의 경우에는 임차인 을이 소유자 병을 위하여 체결한 타인을 위한 보험계약에 해당한다고 볼 여지가 커서 갑 회사가 병에게 건물 손해에 관한 보험금을 지급하고 피보험자인 병의 정에 대한 손해배상채권을 대위취득하여 행사하는 보험자대위권의 범위를 건물만을 대상으로 산정하여야 하는데도
Unofficial English translation
as to the 'Building', there is substantial room for regarding it as an insurance contract for another person concluded by B, the lessee, for the benefit of C, the owner, so that the scope of the right of subrogation exercised by company A, which paid C the insurance money for damage to the Building and acquired by subrogation and exercises C's, as the insured, claim for damages against D, must be calculated by reference to the Building only, yet
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 109호 건물 손해에 관하여 지급한 보험금 관련 구상금 88,511,227원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below dismissing the plaintiff's claims, concerning the recourse claim of KRW 88,511,227 related to the insurance money paid for the damage to Building No. 109 and the delay damages thereon, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The remainder of the plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
보험계약서 및 당사자가 보험계약의 내용으로 삼은 약관의 내용, 당사자가 보험계약을 체결하게 된 경위와 과정, 보험회사의 실무처리 관행 등 제반 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
must be determined by taking into consideration the contents of the insurance contract and the insurance policy terms that the parties adopted as the contents of the insurance contract, the circumstances and process in which the parties concluded the insurance contract, the insurance company's customary business practices, and all other circumstances
Factors
- 화재보험이 책임보험으로서의 성격을 갖는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 손해보험에서 보험의 목적물과 위험의 종류만이 정해져 있고 피보험자와 피보험이익이 명확하지 아니한 경우, 피보험자를 결정하는 방법
- 보험목적물 중 ‘시설, 집기 비품, 동산’의 경우에는 보험계약자 겸 소유자인 을을 피보험자로 하여 하나의 보험계약이 체결되었다고 볼 수 있고
- 정의 책임 비율에 따른 손해배상책임액이 을의 남은 손해액에 미치지 못하므로, 갑 회사가 이 부분 손해의 보험금에 관하여 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 없다고
- ‘건물’의 경우에는 임차인 을이 소유자 병을 위하여 체결한 타인을 위한 보험계약에 해당한다고 볼 여지가 커서
- 건물만을 대상으로 산정하여야 하는데도, 이와 달리 건물을 포함한 보험목적물의 전체 손해액을 기준으로 보험자대위권 행사 범위를 산정함으로써
Unofficial English translation
• Whether fire insurance has the character of liability insurance (in principle, negative) and, in indemnity 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 method for determining the insured
• as to the 'facilities, fixtures and furnishings, movables' among the subject matter of the insurance, one insurance contract may be regarded as having been concluded with B, the policyholder and owner, as the insured, and
• since the amount of liability for damages corresponding to D's ratio of responsibility does not reach B's remaining amount of loss, company A cannot exercise its right of subrogation in respect of the insurance money for this part of the loss
• as to the 'Building', there is substantial room for regarding it as an insurance contract for another person concluded by B, the lessee, for the benefit of C, the owner, so that
• must be calculated by reference to the Building only, yet, contrary to this, by calculating the scope of the exercise of the right of subrogation on the basis of the total amount of loss to the subject matter of the insurance, including the Building,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2019다216589 판결(공2020상, 22)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Da216589 decided November 14, 2019 (Gong 2020 Sang, 22)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2019다216589 판결(공2020상, 22) / [2] 대법원 1997. 5. 30. 선고 95다14800 판결(공1997하, 1992), 대법원 2003. 1. 24. 선고 2002다33496 판결(공2003상, 714)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the insurance certificate lists fire damage liability separately from the fire damage cover and only the latter was paid, does that separate listing affect the insured interest or the scope of subrogation on the building?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court in case 2024Na47557, which will decide the reimbursement claim of KRW 88,511,227 and its interest on the building part, must be read alongside this entry. Any amendment to Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act, or a later decision on insuring a building owned by another person in a lessee's policy, would also require it to be read again.
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 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The source combines characterization of the insurance and insured interests with application to each property, allowing the primary reading to emphasize combined consideration and the independent reading to emphasize application to the facts.
‘건물’의 경우에는 임차인 을이 소유자 병을 위하여 체결한 타인을 위한 보험계약에 해당한다고 볼 여지가 커서Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the insurance certificate lists fire damage liability separately from the fire damage cover and only the latter was paid, does that separate listing affect the insured interest or the scope of subrogation on the building?” vs Independent “Will further examination on remand establish that the building coverage was insurance taken out for the owner?”
The primary reading asks about the effect of separately listed fire liability coverage, while the independent reading asks whether remand will establish insurance for the building owner.
‘건물’의 경우에는 임차인 을이 소유자 병을 위하여 체결한 타인을 위한 보험계약에 해당한다고 볼 여지가 커서 갑 회사가 병에게 건물 손해에 관한 보험금을 지급하고 피보험자인 병의 정에 대한 손해배상채권을 대위취득하여 행사하는 보험자대위권의 범위를 건물만을 대상으로 산정하여야 하는데도Raw 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 4 April 2025 (2024Na47557), found that the fire had started through a defect in the defendant's possession and management of a man-made structure and limited the defendant's liability to 50%. It rejected the plaintiff insurer's argument that the scope of subrogation be computed separately for the building, the fixtures, the furniture and chattels, and held that the liability share of KRW 1,094,487,871, being 50% of the total loss of KRW 2,188,975,743, did not reach the remaining loss of KRW 1,480,803,183 after deducting the insurance money of KRW 708,172,560, so that the insurer could exercise no subrogation at all.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the reasoning below as to the fixtures, furniture and chattels, where the policyholder and the owner coincide, the insured event is the same and one insurance certificate was issued, so a single insurance contract covered them. As to the building, the policyholder and the registered owner differ, the insurance money was paid directly to the registered owner, and that sum had been fixed on the whole loss on the building, so that part was likely insurance for another and its insured interest differed from the rest. It therefore reversed the dismissal of the claim for KRW 88,511,227, being the defendant's 50% share of the building loss of KRW 199,322,665 less the KRW 11,150,105 that remained after deducting the KRW 188,172,560 paid to the registered owner, and remanded that part to the Seoul Central District Court; the rest of the appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Insured objects whose policyholder and owner coincide, so that one insurance contract covers them and the liability share is measured against the total loss of those objects.
- A building whose policyholder and registered owner are the same person, since the Court treated the difference between the two as the reason the building cover was insurance for another.
- Cover written as liability insurance for fire by a separate special agreement, since the Court held that fire insurance has no liability-insurance character unless another special agreement provides for it.
Record verification notes
Fix the owner and the registered owner of each insured object, and record which entity received which part of the insurance money, since the Court relied on the building sum being paid to the registered owner by name. Then read the policy terms and the insurance certificate, noting that fire damage liability was listed separately from the fire damage cover, and compare the 50% liability share of the building loss alone with the building loss net of the building insurance money. The action below was one for reimbursement, so confirm which part of that claim the court below disposed of on the plaintiff's losing side.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 상법 제682조 제1항에 따른 보험자대위권의 행사 범위 [2] 화재보험이 책임보험으로서의 성격을 갖는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 손해보험에서 보험의 목적물과 위험의 종류만이 정해져 있고 피보험자와 피보험이익이 명확하지 아니한 경우, 피보험자를 결정하는 방법 [3] 갑 보험회사가 을과 체결한 보험계약의 보험목적물은 을이 임차한 병 소유의 건물 및 을 소유의 시설, 집기 비품, 동산인데, 위 건물과 같은 동에 소재한 정의 사무실 건물에서 발생한 화재가 확산하여 보험목적물이 소훼되자, 갑 회사가 병에게는 ‘건물’ 손해에 관한 보험금을 지급하고 을에게는 ‘시설, 집기 비품, 동산’ 손해에 관한 보험금을 지급한 다음 정을 상대로 보험자대위권을 행사한 사안에서, 위 보험계약 중 화재손해에 관한 보장 부분은 손해보험에 해당한다고 한 다음, 보험목적물 중 ‘시설, 집기 비품, 동산’의 경우에는 보험계약자 겸 소유자인 을을 피보험자로 하여 하나의 보험계약이 체결되었다고 볼 수 있고, 정의 책임 비율에 따른 손해배상책임액이 을의 남은 손해액에 미치지 못하므로, 갑 회사가 이 부분 손해의 보험금에 관하여 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 없다고 본 원심판단은 받아들일 수 있으나, ‘건물’의 경우에는 임차인 을이 소유자 병을 위하여 체결한 타인을 위한 보험계약에 해당한다고 볼 여지가 커서 갑 회사가 병에게 건물 손해에 관한 보험금을 지급하고 피보험자인 병의 정에 대한 손해배상채권을 대위취득하여 행사하는 보험자대위권의 범위를 건물만을 대상으로 산정하여야 하는데도, 이와 달리 건물을 포함한 보험목적물의 전체 손해액을 기준으로 보험자대위권 행사 범위를 산정함으로써 갑 회사가 건물 손해에 관하여 지급한 보험금에 대해서까지 보험자대위권을 행사할 수 없다고 본 원심판단에는 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The scope of the exercise of the insurer's right of subrogation under Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act [2] Whether fire insurance has the character of liability insurance (in principle, negative) and, in indemnity 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 method for determining the insured [3] In a case where the subject matter of the insurance contract concluded by insurance company A with B was the building owned by C and leased by B, together with the facilities, fixtures and furnishings, and movables owned by B, and, when a fire that broke out in the office building of D situated in the same building as the above building spread and the subject matter of the insurance was destroyed, company A paid C the insurance money in respect of damage to the 'Building' and paid B the insurance money in respect of damage to the 'facilities, fixtures and furnishings, movables', and then exercised its right of subrogation against D, holding that the portion of the above insurance contract covering fire damage constitutes indemnity insurance, and then holding that, as to the 'facilities, fixtures and furnishings, movables' among the subject matter of the insurance, one insurance contract may be regarded as having been concluded with B, the policyholder and owner, as the insured, and that, since the amount of liability for damages corresponding to D's ratio of responsibility does not reach B's remaining amount of loss, the judgment of the court below that company A cannot exercise its right of subrogation in respect of the insurance money for this part of the loss may be accepted, but, as to the 'Building', there is substantial room for regarding it as an insurance contract for another person concluded by B, the lessee, for the benefit of C, the owner, so that the scope of the right of subrogation exercised by company A, which paid C the insurance money for damage to the Building and acquired by subrogation and exercises the insured C's claim for damages against D, must be calculated by reference to the Building only, yet the judgment of the court below, which, contrary to this, calculated the scope of the exercise of the right of subrogation on the basis of the total amount of loss to the subject matter of the insurance, including the Building, and thereby held that company A cannot exercise its right of subrogation even with respect to the insurance money it paid for damage to the Building, is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles, among other things
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 109호 건물 손해에 관하여 지급한 보험금 관련 구상금 88,511,227원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below dismissing the plaintiff's claims, concerning the recourse claim of KRW 88,511,227 related to the insurance money paid for the damage to Building No. 109 and the delay damages thereon, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The remainder of the plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제665조, 제682조 제1항, 제668조 / [2] 상법 제639조, 제665조, 제683조, 제719조 / [3] 상법 제639조, 제665조, 제668조, 제682조 제1항, 제683조
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