자동차사고 피해자의 합의 후 사정변경에 따른 손해배상금 산정시 부당이득반환과 기판력에 관한 판례연구

A Case study on 'Restitution of unjust enrichment' and 'Res judicate' about estimation of Indemnity if the situation is changed after the automobile accident victim had an agreement

The purpose of this essay is to consider the legal aspects of ‘Res judicate’ about change of the situation after the automobile accident victim had an agreement. Generally a contract of automobile insurance is contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnity the assured, in manner and to extent thereby agreed, against losses of the assured occur during possession, use, management with the insured car. Here the word 'indemnity' means, literally, to save from loss or harm and, accordingly, 'indemnity' means he protection or security against damage or loss. If a car accident victims have agreed the insurer, the later additional damages can not claim to the insurer in principle. But The Supreme Court has recognized exceptions to the additional charge. That is to say, the car accident victims are the plants and sister state, if they survive longer than expected life, the insurer has been paid additional indemnity. The reason is that 'Res judicate' of previous litigation don't affect later litigation. This case is that the car accident victims must return already received compensation, if they died early than expected life. The Supreme Court has denied them. I think that this conclusion is wrong. Because this supreme court judgement inclined to admit the range of 'Res judicate' narrowly, and is placed with the past decisions. So this judgement are violated 'equity'. So I oppose to the Final Judgement because confuses legal judgement about ''Res judicate'.