Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Scope of a fire insurer's subrogation where several fire policies overlap
Supreme Court, May 14, 2026, 2025Da220815 (judgment)
Case name: 구상금[화재손해보험 중복보험자의 보험자대위에 의한 청구권 범위가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where several fire insurance policies on a building are in an overlapping-insurance relationship and one insurer has paid the insured, does receiving the contribution share from another insurer bar that insurer from exercising subrogation against the tortfeasor, and how far does the subrogated claim extend, including where the insurer subrogates to the direct claim against a liability insurer under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act?
Holding
The insurer may still exercise subrogation against the tortfeasor. The contribution share received from another fire insurer does not bar the claim; it only narrows the claim, which covers the amount paid to the insured, less the contribution share received, and only the part of that remainder matching the tortfeasor's share of liability. The same applies where the insurer and the co-insurer each paid only their own overlapping share from the start, and where the insurer subrogates to the direct claim against a liability insurer under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 보험자로서는 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 상법 제672조 제1항에 따라 중복보험 분담금을 지급받았다고 하더라도 상법 제682조에 따라 가해자에 대하여 보험자대위에 의한 청구권을 행사할 수 있고, 다만 그 범위가 피보험자에게 지급한 보험금에서 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 지급받은 중복보험 분담금을 공제한 금액 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분으로 축소될 뿐이다.
Unofficial English translation
The said insurer may exercise a claim by subrogation against the tortfeasor in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act even though, as such insurer, it has received the contribution share in double insurance from the insurer of the other fire insurance in accordance with Article 672 (1) of the Commercial Act, but its scope is merely reduced to the portion of the burden corresponding to the ratio of liability of the tortfeasor, who is the counterparty of the claim by subrogation, out of the amount obtained by deducting the contribution share in double insurance received from the insurer of the other fire insurance from the insurance money paid to the insured.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 공동하여 54,164,710원 및 그중 5,580,825원에 대하여는 2022. 2. 4.부터, 38,839,533원에 대하여는 2022. 8. 3.부터 각 2025. 12. 3.까지 연 5%, 9,744,352원에 대하여는 2022. 9. 1.부터 2024. 4. 30.까지 연 5%, 각 그다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 12%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 초과하여 지급을 명한 피고들 패소 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분에 해당하는 원고의 피고들에 대한 청구를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the judgment of the court below, the portions of the judgment in which the defendants lost, ordering payment of money in excess of the amounts calculated at the respective rates of 5% per annum from February 4, 2022 until December 3, 2025 as to KRW 5,580,825 and 5% per annum from August 3, 2022 until December 3, 2025 as to KRW 38,839,533, among the jointly KRW 54,164,710, 5% per annum from September 1, 2022 until April 30, 2024 as to KRW 9,744,352, and 12% per annum from the day following each of the above dates until full payment, are reversed, and the plaintiff's claims against the defendants corresponding to those portions are dismissed in their entirety.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 범위가 피보험자에게 지급한 보험금에서 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 지급받은 중복보험 분담금을 공제한 금액 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분으로 축소될 뿐이다
Unofficial English translation
its scope is merely reduced to the portion of the burden corresponding to the ratio of liability of the tortfeasor, who is the counterparty of the claim by subrogation, out of the amount obtained by deducting the contribution share in double insurance received from the insurer of the other fire insurance from the insurance money paid to the insured
Factors
- 상법 제672조 제1항에 따라 중복보험 분담금을 지급받았다고 하더라도
- 상법 제682조에 따라 가해자에 대하여 보험자대위에 의한 청구권을 행사할 수 있고
- 피보험자에게 지급한 보험금에서 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 지급받은 중복보험 분담금을 공제한 금액 중
- 처음부터 보험자와 중복보험자가 각 중복보험 비율에 따른 보험금만을 지급한 경우에도
- 상법 제724조 제2항에 따른 책임보험 직접청구권을 대위행사할 때에도 마찬가지이다
Unofficial English translation
• even though the contribution share in double insurance has been paid in accordance with Article 672 (1) of the Commercial Act,
• may exercise a claim by subrogation against the tortfeasor in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act, and
• out of the amount obtained by deducting the contribution share in double insurance received from the insurer of the other fire insurance from the insurance money paid to the insured,
• even in a case where the insurer and the double insurer have from the outset paid only the insurance money according to their respective double insurance ratios,
• it is likewise the case when exercising by subrogation the direct claim against the liability insurer under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009다42819 판결(공2010상, 224), 대법원 2015. 1. 29. 선고 2013다214529 판결(공2015상, 301)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da42819 decided December 24, 2009 (Gong 2010 Sang, 224), Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214529 decided January 29, 2015 (Gong 2015 Sang, 301)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009다42819 판결(공2010상, 224), 대법원 2015. 1. 29. 선고 2013다214529 판결(공2015상, 301)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the insurer's payment and the co-insurer's contribution fall in different periods and the insured's total loss is not fully paid by the two insurers together, how should the subrogated amount be measured at each stage?
Any change to Article 672(1), 682, 683, 719 or 724(2) of the Commercial Act would require this entry to be read again, as would a later decision altering the measure of the subrogated claim where the insurers paid only their overlapping shares from the outset.
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 insurer's payment and the co-insurer's contribution fall in different periods and the insured's total loss is not fully paid by the two insurers together, how should the subrogated amount be measured at each stage?” vs Independent “How should subrogation be adjusted if an overlapping insurer pays its contribution after the subrogation judgment becomes final?”
The primary asks about staged calculation when payments occur at different times and losses remain uncompensated, while the independent asks about adjustment after a final subrogation judgment.
위 보험자로서는 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 상법 제672조 제1항에 따라 중복보험 분담금을 지급받았다고 하더라도 상법 제682조에 따라 가해자에 대하여 보험자대위에 의한 청구권을 행사할 수 있고, 다만 그 범위가 피보험자에게 지급한 보험금에서 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 지급받은 중복보험 분담금을 공제한 금액 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분으로 축소될 뿐이다.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 court below found the loss on the building and fixtures at KRW 359,597,794, the property damage liability loss at KRW 16,240,587 and the loss on the unit whose number was omitted at KRW 9,301,375, reduced the defendants' liability for the fire to 60 per cent under Article 3(2) of the Act on Distinction of Liability for Real Fire, and then deducted 60 per cent of the loss suffered by the non-party, the owner of the third floor of the office-tel building, who lived with Defendant 1, on which loss the plaintiff could not subrogate under Article 682(2) of the Commercial Act, a total of KRW 156,962,385. It therefore held that the plaintiff could subrogate to KRW 74,121,468 of the victims' damages claims against the defendants.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff and the co-insurer had each paid only the insurance money corresponding to their overlapping share from the start, the subrogated claim was confined to the insurance money the plaintiff actually paid, less the insurance money paid to the non-party on whose damages claim subrogation was barred under Article 682(2) of the Commercial Act, leaving KRW 90,274,518, to which the defendants' 60 per cent share of liability was applied, giving KRW 54,164,710. The court below had misread the law on the scope of the subrogated claim by measuring it against the victims' entire loss. The Court reversed the part ordering payment beyond that amount and, under Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, decided the case itself, dismissing the plaintiff's claim to that extent.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the fire policies on the building are not in an overlapping-insurance relationship, since the rule fixes the range of subrogation only where several fire policies overlap.
- A claim against a party who is not the tortfeasor whose share of liability sets the range of the subrogated claim.
- A case in which the insurance money paid to the insured still includes the amount paid to a person on whose damages claim subrogation is barred under Article 682(2) of the Commercial Act and that amount has not been deducted.
Record verification notes
List every policy on the same building, each insurer's payment and each co-insurer's contribution share, and set them against the insurance money the plaintiff actually paid. Deduct separately what was paid to the person on whose damages claim subrogation is barred under Article 682(2) of the Commercial Act, then apply the tortfeasor's share of liability, here 60 per cent after the reduction under Article 3(2) of the Act on Distinction of Liability for Real Fire. The interest dates and rates turn on the day after each insurance money was finally paid, on the date the court below gave judgment, here 3 December 2025, and on the date of the first-instance judgment, here 30 April 2024, up to which 5 per cent a year applies and from which the 12 per cent a year under the Act on Promotion of Litigation applies.
From the official text
Points at issue
건물 등을 보험목적으로 하는 복수의 보험이 중복보험의 관계에 있는 경우, 건물에 화재가 발생하여 어느 한 화재보험의 보험자가 피보험자에게 보험금을 지급하였다면, 위 보험자가 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 중복보험 분담금을 지급받았다고 하더라도 가해자에 대하여 보험자대위에 의한 청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그 범위(=피보험자에게 지급한 보험금에서 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 지급받은 중복보험 분담금을 공제한 금액 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분) / 위와 같은 법리는 처음부터 보험자와 중복보험자가 각 중복보험 비율에 따른 보험금만을 지급한 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용될 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 이 경우 보험자대위에 의한 청구권 범위(=피보험자에게 지급한 보험금 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분) / 이는 위 보험자가 가해자의 손해배상책임을 보상하는 책임보험자에 대하여 상법 제724조 제2항에 따른 책임보험 직접청구권을 대위행사할 때에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where multiple insurances whose object of insurance is buildings and the like stand in the relationship of double insurance, if a fire occurs in a building and the insurer under one fire insurance has paid the insurance money to the insured, whether the said insurer may exercise a claim by subrogation against the tortfeasor, even though it has received the contribution share in double insurance from the insurer of the other fire insurance (affirmative) and the scope thereof (= the portion of the burden corresponding to the ratio of liability of the tortfeasor, who is the counterparty of the claim by subrogation, out of the amount obtained by deducting the contribution share in double insurance received from the insurer of the other fire insurance from the insurance money paid to the insured) / Whether the said legal principle may likewise apply even in a case where the insurer and the double insurer have from the outset paid only the insurance money according to their respective double insurance ratios (affirmative) and, in that case, the scope of the claim by subrogation (= the portion of the burden corresponding to the ratio of liability of the tortfeasor, who is the counterparty of the claim by subrogation, out of the insurance money paid to the insured) / Whether this is likewise the case when the said insurer exercises by subrogation the direct claim against the liability insurer under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, who indemnifies the tortfeasor's liability for damages (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
건물 등을 보험목적으로 하는 복수의 보험이 중복보험의 관계에 있는 경우, 건물에 화재가 발생하여 어느 한 화재보험의 보험자가 피보험자에게 그 건물에 관한 보험금을 지급하였다면, 위 보험자로서는 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 상법 제672조 제1항에 따라 중복보험 분담금을 지급받았다고 하더라도 상법 제682조에 따라 가해자에 대하여 보험자대위에 의한 청구권을 행사할 수 있고, 다만 그 범위가 피보험자에게 지급한 보험금에서 다른 화재보험의 보험자로부터 지급받은 중복보험 분담금을 공제한 금액 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분으로 축소될 뿐이다. 위와 같은 법리는 보험자가 보험금을 먼저 전부 지급한 후 중복보험자로부터 분담금을 지급받은 경우뿐 아니라 처음부터 보험자와 중복보험자가 각 중복보험 비율에 따른 보험금만을 지급한 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용될 수 있다. 그러한 경우 보험자대위에 의한 청구권 범위는 피보험자에게 지급한 보험금 중 보험자대위에 의한 청구권의 상대방인 가해자의 책임비율에 따른 부담 부분으로 제한된다. 이는 위 보험자가 가해자의 손해배상책임을 보상하는 책임보험자에 대하여 상법 제724조 제2항에 따른 책임보험 직접청구권을 대위행사할 때에도 마찬가지이다.
Order
원심판결 중 공동하여 54,164,710원 및 그중 5,580,825원에 대하여는 2022. 2. 4.부터, 38,839,533원에 대하여는 2022. 8. 3.부터 각 2025. 12. 3.까지 연 5%, 9,744,352원에 대하여는 2022. 9. 1.부터 2024. 4. 30.까지 연 5%, 각 그다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 12%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 초과하여 지급을 명한 피고들 패소 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분에 해당하는 원고의 피고들에 대한 청구를 모두 기각한다. 소송총비용 중 70%는 원고가, 나머지는 피고들이 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the judgment of the court below, the portions of the judgment in which the defendants lost, ordering payment of money in excess of the amounts calculated at the respective rates of 5% per annum from February 4, 2022 until December 3, 2025 as to KRW 5,580,825 and 5% per annum from August 3, 2022 until December 3, 2025 as to KRW 38,839,533, among the jointly KRW 54,164,710, 5% per annum from September 1, 2022 until April 30, 2024 as to KRW 9,744,352, and 12% per annum from the day following each of the above dates until full payment, are reversed, and the plaintiff's claims against the defendants corresponding to those portions are dismissed in their entirety. As to 70% of the total litigation costs, the plaintiff shall bear them, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants, respectively.
Provisions referred to
상법 제672조 제1항, 제682조, 제683조, 제719조, 제724조 제2항
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