A Study on the National Health Insurance Corporation's Subrogation : Supreme Court 2024. 11. 20. Sentence 2021DA220864

Judgement in this case covered the scope and limitations of the case where the National Health Insurance Corporation exercises the right to indemnity against the perpetrator or insurer after the national health insurance benefit is paid to the victim of the illegal act. The Supreme Court found that the cost of treatment paid by the insurer and the cost of treatment paid by the corporation were not complementary because the time of treatment by the victim and the hospital were different. Based on this, the Supreme Court decided that most of the medical expenses paid by the insurer as liability claims should be deducted from the damages that the corporation claimed. The Supreme Court's ruling can be regarded as an objective and fair interpretation of the jurisprudence on the exercise and scope of the insurer's subrogation. In addition, it is judged to be a reasonable conclusion in terms of the protection of the rights and interests of the victims and the equitable sharing of damages. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of subrogation of the corporation takes precedence over the victim 's direct claim because the time of insurance payment is ahead of the time when the insurer fulfills the obligation to compensate for damages. This is an unfair interpretation from the point of view of the principle of creditor equality or the protection of victims. In addition, the Supreme Court denied the complementary relationship between the medical expenses paid by the payment guarantee and the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff as health insurance benefits, and did not recognize most of the National Health Insurance Corporation's subrogation. Failure to provide specific grounds for judgment that denied complementary relationships raises some questions about the reliability of the ruling.