약정대위에서 “우월한 법적지위론(Superior Equities Doctrine)”의 적용 여부에 대한 미국 워싱턴 D.C. 법원 판결에 대한 고찰 National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. v. The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C. 판결

Surety (or insurer) recovers the loss by the subrogation after it paid the claims. Subrogation is the right created by equity so as to secure justice and to bar unjust enrichment in the United States. Subrogation is admitted in equity or by contract, the former is called “equitable subrogation”, and the latter is called “conventional or contractual subrogation”. “Superior Equities Doctrine” is a rule by which a subrogee (or an insurer) is unable to recover from anyone whose equities are equal or superior to the subrogee’s (or the insurer's). The District of Columbia court first admitted “Superior Equities Doctrine” for equitable subrogation in Washington Mechanics' Savings Bank v. District Title Ins. Co. (1933), and several court decisions followed the 1933 decision. However, the District of Columbia court denied the application of “Superior Equities Doctrine” to conventional subrogation in National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (1994). An insurance company which compensated depositor for losses that it sustained as a result of unauthorized draws on its account subsequently brought suit against a bank for its alleged negligence in honoring checks containing forged endorsements in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment in favor of bank with applying “Superior Equities Doctrine”, and an insurer appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia certified to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the questions of law that whether “Superior Equities Doctrine” applies to conventional subrogation under the District of Columbia Law. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that “Superior Equities Doctrine”, although applicable to equitable subrogation claims, has no application in cases of conventional subrogation and assignment, because conventional subrogation and assignment are based on contractual agreements between parties and do not derive their validity from principles of equity. Although the Korea Commercial Code and the Supreme court of Korea admitted some limitations to subrogation, Korea does not seem to admit Superior Equities Doctrine as limitation to subrogation.