Why I Don’t Drive in Korea and You Shouldn’t Either
by Brendon Carr
I‘ve been living here in Korea for more than a decade since I graduated law school, and during that time I haven’t driven a car.
Somehow I stumbled across the Korea Beat weblog, which features high-quality translations from the Korean press (apparently as a study aid for the blogger) and the occasional lurid cheesecake photo—thanks for that!—and read a translation that perfectly captures why I don’t drive. It’s definitely recommended reading.
Korea handles automobile accidents according to an odd “blame-sharing” concept whereby both parties are always deemed to have some fault in the accident. The usual apportionment is 60-40. What this means is that the driver who caused the accident bears 60% of the responsibility (and therefore cost), and the driver who simply got crashed into gets stuck with 40% of the responsibility on some cockamamie theory that had he not been operating a motor vehicle he would not have gotten into the accident. So the 60% driver pays 60% of the damages incurred by the driver he struck, but receives from the driver he struck an offsetting payment of 40% of the 60% driver’s damages.
This concept on liability is so different from what Westerners are accustomed to and expect that a foreign victim of an accident is usually stunned at the weirdness of it all.
We had a client and friend, an avid motorcyclist, who got himself struck by a bus—from behind, after the bus blew through a red light. Our friend was still deemed 20% responsible for the accident even though he spent weeks flat on his back laid up in the hospital, and had to pay the bus company some settlement for its damages (this was offset against what the bus company owed him, of course).
The translated article at Korea Beat notes one absurdity that follows from the blame-allocation method followed here. If a driver of an expensive car recklessly smashes into a driver of an affordable car, that 60-40 split usually means that the “guilty party” has much greater damages. Luxury autos here run about W100,000,000—if that car is totalled through its driver’s recklessness and stupidity, the victim would have to pony up W40,000,000 for repair costs. If the victim’s car is worth, say, W10,000,000 and is totalled, the luxury-car driver pays only W6,000,000 for those damages.
So the innocent driver gets his car totalled and receives a bill for W34,000,000 from the guy who hit him. If his insurance policy limit is less than this, the net result of the accident is cash out of pocket for the innocent driver.
Add to that the equally frightening concept of criminal responsibility in all cases of personal injury by vehicle (I might write more on this in the future), and I am absolutely not interested in getting behind the wheel of a car. My office is a W1900 (basic flagfall) fare from my home, so my daily commute cost is only five bucks anyway.
Here’s the business-lawyer twist at the end: One of the common benefits to expatriate managers here in Korea is a company-furnished car and driver. That seems extravagant to an outsider, and as a lawyer who handles a lot of employment matters I get asked about the car-and-driver demand all the time. In my opinion, Korean law makes a car and driver (and a big insurance policy limit!) a very good idea for anyone who can afford it. (In essence, that’s what I do with the short-to-mid-distance taxis.) The time that one loses in the case of an accident is potentially too much of a distraction from getting the job done.
And going to jail for a simple car accident is something totally unexpected to an expat. You can’t get much work done from jail.
Comments
27 Responses to This Entry
Comments Policy: Comments to Korea Law Blog are moderated. This means abusive, or just plain stupid comments will be deleted. So don't be a jerk. It also means there may be some delay from the time you post a comment to the time it shows up here. If your comment wasn't against the policy, it will show up in a little bit.
-
About Korea Law Blog
Korea Law Blog is brought to you by Brendon Carr, an American lawyer working as a foreign legal consultant for more than 10 years in Seoul. (Brendon is not admitted as an attorney in Korea. But you knew that.) -
Contact Details
-
Tel. +82 (0)2 772 2734
Fax +82 (0)2 772 2800
Mobile +82 (0)10 8788 0750 -
Download My FREE Korea Employment Law FAQ
-
Korean Media
-
Blogroll
-
I once knew an individual who, for reasons unknown to me, did not want to leave Korea and thought that being placed on “international hold’ would keep him in Korea. He, on purpose, rammed his vehicle into another vehicle; however, the KNP refused to request international hold status. Both drivers were held accountable; much like you mentioned above.
Thanks for the mention. I hadn’t been in any accidents in my life until I went to Korea and got in two in less than a year. Fortunately nobody got hurt but that was a quick introduction to Korean auto law.
As to the last point you mentioned I find that pretty frightening as well. A friend of mine had a childhood friend who eventually died—or, perhaps, committed suicide—by running recklessly in front of a bus, which got the bus driver sent up for 10 years.
Of course this could make for a whole post, but in general how is responsibility handled in Korean law? If there are no no-fault auto accidents, how about no-fault divorce? And like many expats I’ve heard that the least-injured party in a fight is held responsible, but actual Koreans have told me very different things about that.
Doug, the missing elements from the international hold scenario would seem to be (i) causing damage greater than the policy limit on insurance, so that a civil lawsuit would ensue (ram into a Mercedes!); or (ii) causing injury or death to a person, so that criminal jeopardy would attach.
Better luck to your friend next time!
&uot;
Korea Beat, you’re right—I could write volumes on how responsibility is apportioned in Korean law. But not today; no time. Anyway, as a foreigner myself I still do not intuit all of Koreans’ concept of “natural justice”, just as they have trouble with Americans’. (If the thief is running away, shoot him and drag him into your house!)
On divorce—generally, if the parties cannot agree on their divorce, Korean law does not otherwise allow a party to sue on a “no-fault; theory. Marital misconduct must be attributed to the other spouse. That is, of course, if the parties cannot agree on their divorce and push things to the court to decide for them.
Divorce is a common-enough inquiry (I do read the referrer logs) that one of these days I will write something up for Korea Law Blog. The problem is that I don’t really want divorce inquiries to find me regularly—when existing clients ask about divorce of course I help but as a general rule it’s crappy work for international lawyers in Korea.
On the punch-up—you’ve got it in a nutshell. The least-injured party is the one “responsible” or “guilty”, and will end up getting more punishment.
Fascinating article. Just yesterday a Korean friend of mine was telling me how cheap car insurance is in Korea compared to similar coverage in the U.S. If so, why not just pay a little more for greater coverage in Korea to compensate for the Korean way of making the victim pay? That would seem to address the concern about having to pay out of pocket.
If paying more for insurance can keep the victim from having to pay, would it be fair to say that your warning not to drive is ultimately more because of the potential criminal liability, which you don’t discuss in this article?
FA, the supposed “cheapness” of Korean car insurance reported by your friend does not jibe with my experience. But I don’t drive, and therefore don’t buy insurance. Maybe others could comment. However, your Korean friend would have been showing up in the States without any driving history—new insurance customers always pay the most. If and when I go back to America I expect my insurance rates would be pretty high.
I’ve got a number of reasons not to drive: Cost (parking and gas are both insane, as well as the sticker-shock of the car itself) and risk are at the top. And yes, the criminal risk is pretty scary to me. The driver who causes injury is always criminally liable, and avoids jail only by placating the injured party (or, God forbid in the case of fatality, the surviving family members) by cash payoff. And there are no standards for this payoff—whatever they demand, the driver has to pay. Or go to jail.
As a foreign lawyer, I am automatically deemed to belong to two classes of super-rich: foreigners and lawyers. Meanwhile, I’m not super-rich. (The multinational corporation’s country manager is in the same boat. He’s got a cushy package, but at the end of the day is a working stiff just like me.)
This sets up an expectation gap between my ability to compensate and any potential victim’s belief in how much cash I have lying around to give to them. Thus, I face a greater-than-I-can-accept chance of going to jail in such a situation.
So when it comes down to it, the assignment of fault is nearly worthless. It’s almost like a twisted version of no-fault insurance. Though, can this explain why so many people in Seoul drive with their heads up their wazoos?
I feel the vehicle insurance in Korea is reasonable. Of course I may feel that way because the insured vehicle is 10 years old. Each renewal year, for the first 4 years, I received a 10% discount (max 40%). I carried full coverage with unlimited liability. For several years I thought I was covered for uninsured motorist, however, I found out that I was not covered and the only way to get this coverage was to also take out personal injury protection.
On the negative side, I knew an individual who, 10 plus years ago, accidently killed an elderly lady in a crosswalk. After paying out around $100,000 this unfortunate individual decided not to drive in Korea, and has not for the past ten years.
Hey, when you get around to writing on the Korean conception of apportioning damages, could you talk about where it came from? Does Japan also do things this way? Or perhaps it is the German legal style? Or maybe it came from somewhere else, or perhaps its a totally 100% Korean idea.
If I had to guess, I’d venture that these ideas came from Japan.
I am curious also, re the Korean legal ideas. Where did they come up with this weird apportionment of responsibility. It seems to run so counter to most things .. I don’t get it that by being on the road, and being rear-ended, you’re partly responsible.
I’m really glad to finally have an entry on Korea Law Blog that is attracting a lively set of comments. Thanks for writing, Brett.
The idea behind both the apportionment of blame for civil liability due to an accident and criminal punishment for causing injury with that motor vehicle in an accident is that the operator of any vehicle has an affirmative duty to operate the vehicle safely and reasonably. Getting in an accident means that obviously the driver has failed in that duty.
I agree that each person is responsible to make sure there is not an accident, but if I’m sitting at a red light ( yes I know, I shouldn’t be sitting at a red light - I should have gone through it ) and someone piles into the back of me, how is it my fault ? What weird confuscian logic comes into play here.
One thing I like about the Korean system—even though the system may have been copied from another country—is that contributory negligence is easy to assess. Take an illegally parked car involved in an accident. The following percents are applied to the parked vehicle: Illegally parked = 5%, at night another 5%, impeding traffic flow = 10% and so on.
I guess I got off lucky when the motorcycle delivery guy ran a red light and smashed into the side of my car (as I was proceeding through the intersection on a green). It was deemed to be 90% his fault, and 10% mine. I couldn’t understand why it was my fault at all, but it makes sense. It was my duty as a driver to avoid the situation.
I bought a brand new car almost four years ago. I have found that insurance has been reasonable, even after the accident. I do have unlimited liability also, just to be on the safe side. I knew that if push came to shove, being the outsider, not knowing the ins and outs of the driving culture, I would be in a much greater position to er, eh-hem, get screwed.
Both my partner and I were hit by a car who did not stop at the cross-walk when attempting to cross on a 49 cc motorbike. The insurance company stated the % rule and then without my ok reached settlement which was 80-20 and no medical.
Sorry Brendon, but I have to take issue with what you said about going to jail even when there is ‘no fault’. I know you put it that way for dramatic effect, but I think it’s misleading for your readers.
In response to Chris, in Korea traffic accidents are a matter of both civil and criminal liability. Since you seem to have a background in law, you are probably aware that the two procedures may run concurrently yet are theoretically independently of each other. (OJ Simpson anyone?) Korea has a general statute punishing the infliction of negligent injury or death on another person. With regard to car accidents, there is a special regime based on the general statute, with negligent damage of property added as a criminal offense.
Korea’s criminal liability regime for car accidents is actually geared towards ensuring that drivers have insurance. What it does is criminalize negligent injury in principle, but in fact exempts drivers with proper insurance from prosecution. This provides a strong incentive for people to obtain proper insurance coverage, and while the apportionment of liability can sometimes seem counterintuitive, taking care of the aftermath remains a matter of civil compensation and generally the insurance companies will hash it out amongst themselves.
There are, however, situations where prosecution is NOT exempted. These are (i) death due to negligence (ii) non-fulfillment of the obligation to succor an injured party (iii) certain acts of negligence set forth specifically by statute. These include, for example, driving under the influence, driving without a license, driving 20km/h over the speed limit, driving in contravention of traffic signals, etc. In short, actions which are clearly negligent and therefore far from ‘no fault’.
But it’s when someone dies that things CAN become screwy. It’s difficult for someone not to be negligent when an accident is severe enough to result in a death (I’m not saying it’s impossible for someone to be found innocent - there are key cases embracing legal principles mitigating criminal negligence), and once the case goes to court, a huge factor in the severity of punishment is whether the accused and the victim (or the victim’s relatives) have come to an ‘agreement’, generally consisting of a large lump sum payment. If there is an agreement, there is a high probability the sentence will be suspended. But relatives may be incensed and want you punished and damn the money, or they may look at it as a golden opportunity to take the shirt off your back.
Brendon is critical of involving criminal liability at all, but in the case of death I think local attitudes have to be taken into account. People in the US might be more disposed to look at death or injury due to negligence as a purely civil matter, but in Korea I think people probably want the option of exercising some sort of ‘retribution’ on whoever is responsible for the death of a family member. Of course most of them eventually opt for the money, but being able to go through the theatrics of anger - appeasement - reluctant forgiveness probably appeals more to social convention. Whether this is more ‘primitive’ or ‘less sophisticated’ is open to interpretation.
Yep, you’ve correctly encapsulated my bias for the American way of separating civil and criminal liability. That grieving relatives are able to extract their pound of flesh from the driver by the (threat of) intervention of the state sits wrong with me.
At any rate, what I was getting at in the original post is that this is one area where the prevailing legal concepts are strikingly different from what most expatriate residents of Korea may be expecting, and so ought to be highlighted in the manner I attempted and which you’ve expanded.
As for “Sorry Brendon”, there’s no need for apologies at all. Thanks for dropping in and I hope we get more of these kinds of amplifications and explanations out of you in the future.
This has been interesting, yet also a bit scary reading and I thank you for the info.
The reason for my reaction is I had an accident a few weeks ago where a driver ran a red light, at a high rate of speed, and I was driving a scooter going with the green. Because of her speed I had not noticed her until it was to late and fortunately, at least for me, I broadsided her instead of the other alternative.
The result was a slight fracture to the number 2 lumbar, four days in the hospital, and the next 3 months to be spent in a torso brace with the accompanying inconveniences. But I am mobile and even back to teaching.
After making statements to the police a couple of times they told me the other day that my case was going to the prosecutor because nobody had admitted fault. However, the police did state that someone had phoned, yet refused to make a report in person, stating that they were a witness and the other driver had gone through on a red and was to busy talking to a passenger to notice. Yesterday upon hearing this the other party evidently admitted that they had violated the light.
Caveat: I had been ill-informed that as long as the motor bike was under 100cc a license was not needed. I had none and now know that there will be a W300,000 fine. But I did have insurance.
My question should you care to reply is: What might I be looking at in the future? Does the injury trump the property damage? Can an insurance company make a settlement without my consent?
The other drivers insurance did visit me in the hospital and tried to limit their liability, and has since contacted my school trying to get together with me for talks.
Thank you for any information you might have and a big thanks for this site.
I have no idea what to say about insurance practice. It’s not my area of expertise. I only raised it because the Korea Beat translation was relevant and interesting.
Hi Tom,
I’m sorry to hear you got involved in an accident like that. I don’t have any experience to speak of in insurance either, so take what I’m going to say as general guidance only. Things could turn out differently and I’m only going by what you’ve written above.
First off, as I said, there’s a theoretical difference between criminal and civil liability, but there will be points where the two will affect each other. I’ll try to point these out as clearly as I can.
In terms of criminal liability, there’s no ‘trumping’ between crimes. You and the other driver will each be investigated for possible criminal prosecution. Fortunately for you, however, it seems you only inflicted property damage on the other person’s car. In that case, even if you didn’t have a license, if you have proper insurance or the other driver states that she is unwilling to have you prosecuted, you will be exempt from prosecution (I think my post above was slightly unclear on that point). But you will be fined 300,000 won for driving without a license, as you noted above.
The other driver is not so lucky if she admitted to running a red light. She will be subject to criminal prosecution and will most likely want to come to an agreement with you and have you state to the prosecutor or sign a document that you are unwilling to have her punished, which will lead to more lenient sentencing for her. This is where civil and criminal matters become intertwined, and can become confusing. More on this a bit later.
As for civil liability, the insurance companies will come to you with some predetermined division of liability (probably somewhere around a ratio of 8:2). Since all insurance companies go by the same liability chart, you will have to go to court if you think the division is unjust. (That opens a whole different can of worms.) In your case, I think you should (discreetly) check your insurance policy in advance, since most insurance policies state that they will not compensate you for injury incurred while driving without a license. (This does not apply to the other driver’s insurance company. Even if you didn’t have a license, they have to compensate you as a victim.) This is relevant because usually even if there is a division of liability you will be compensated for your share by your insurance company(although higher insurance premiums will follow) so that you will be fully compensated, but if you’re ineligible for compensation from your own company, you might only get say 80% compensation from the other driver’s insurance company and have to pay 20% of your own damages and the damage incurred by the other driver out of your own pocket.
Coming back to the ‘agreement’ you will probably be coming to with the other driver. You will want to check the contents of what you are signing. The agreement will entail her making a lump sum payment to you and can pertain to either ‘criminal matters’ or ‘both criminal and civil matters’. DON’T sign an agreement for ‘both criminal and civil matters’, because that means that everything regarding the accident is settled by that one payment. Since you’ve been pretty seriously hurt, you might have further complications you don’t know about right now and you’ll want to get compensation for that as well.
Even if you sign the agreement for ‘criminal matters’ only, if you don’t specify otherwise the amount you’ve been paid will be regarded by Korean courts as part of the civil damages you should receive. That is, if you have 2 million won damages in total and received 1 million won payment per the agreement, she will only have to pay you 1 million won more for civil damages. To get by this, make sure that the document states the payment is solely for ‘consolation/mental distress’ (위자료) or ‘apart from civil damages’ (손해배상과는 별도). This way, only part of the payment will be subtracted from the amount that is due to you.
Hope this helped, gotta run.
Tom, this guy “leefr” is a Korean attorney currently working for the government in a national-service capacity. Next year he’ll be joining one of the top firms in Seoul and the firm will be hawking his advice to multinational corporations. I doubt he’ll have the free time then to comment here at Korea Law Blog—but for now, I’m glad to have his interest, and hope that the foregoing has been helpful to you.
By the way, there’s an extra issue that I’m not sure how it will turn out - namely, if your insurance policy does not cover you in cases of driving without a license, whether the law will construe that as a case in which you DON’T have the requisite insurance.
If it turns out that you are subject to prosecution, don’t panic. Just have the agreement with your fellow driver have her state that she’s unwilling to have you prosecuted as well, and in your case you will be exempt from prosecution.
The last two paragraphs in my above posts describe how you can extract your ‘pound of flesh’, to borrow Brendon’s expression, from the other driver over and above the civil damages done to you. If you feel uncomfortable with that, you are of course free to make her payment part of the compensation you should receive for your civil damages. (I should also note that Korean courts attempt to mitigate this kind of extraction—extortion?—by interpreting this kind of payment as part of the civil damages due unless the parties specifically state otherwise)
Leefr and Brendon, I thank you both for the information.
I am a little confused regarding the separation of signing between the civil and criminal aspects of the case. But maybe if I posted the current standing of the action you could advise.
The insurance agent for the other driver was by yesterday acknowledging that his client had admitted guilt. His own words according to my fellow teacher were that they were now 100 percent liable, but because of my not having a license it will be a 90-10 split. Possibly he was making a distinction at the time between civil and criminal, I do not know.
After much back and forth between him and my fellow teacher I was able to ascertain that he of course wanted to settle or limit their liability. It was hard to get a full rundown of what he was explaining but the summation was basically that they felt my claim should be worth about W7 million plus expenses to date with no further liability. Not knowing exactly what to do I countered with 10m, plus a full release of liability from the other party and the expenses incurred including repair of scooter.
As to the injury, I am not a medical doctor but have had my share of lumps and bruises in my life--currently 55 years old--and my personal feeling is that this injury is not likely to cause any lasting discomforts that age plus wear-and-tear have not already left me with. I honestly do not expect anything beyond what I have am already enduring.
Today I even had a visit from one of my students’ mother with a lawyer in tow. His words were that I could receive much more for this injury. However, I am not vindictive, the other party has been very concerned for my health the whole time and I hold no grudge against her. My feeling is that I want to just put this all behind me and get on with life here in Korea.
Honestly, I just don’t know. Civil suits etc. are just not something I am familiar with or very interested in.
Thanks again for the advise. I have much to ponder.
Sir, I do appreciate your help with these small matters.
Our University uses english only in the contract we sign.
I understand that in order for it to be legally enforcable, it must be in Korean.
Is this true?
No, it is not true. All that’s necessary for formation of a contract is that both parties understand it.
As someone who has driven for almost a year in Korea, I can say that if you want to drive here you have to get use to the way they to it.
Obviously accidents should be avoided, but Korean drivers (compared to UK ones) tend to be slower and more cautious except when in comes to lane disciplne (which I have quickly got use to and into).
Insurance for me, however, certainly wasn’t cheaper (it’s similar or more expensive than the UK.)
Driving here is a bit more like cycling amoungst a bunch of cyclists (in a peleton) and not much faster. You have to be aware of traffic front back and sides.
Just as a further extension of this discussion I thought it may be helpful to mention the situation with regards to bicycles.
From experience I have learned that despite there being no registration, required licenses or insurance coverage (that I can find) a bicycle is considered a “2-wheeled car” and that if involved in any mishap, especially with a pedestrian, the rider is considered both criminally and civilly responsible.
While riding down the Han River path a friend hit an inline-skater who suddenly and without reason veered in front of him. Of course he was not wearing the appropriate protection, went down head first and began convulsing on the ashphalt.
Thus ensued a lengthy procedure at the local police station and hospital. Fortunately, the skater was upset that my friend had been charged (his fellow skater called police) and refused any form of compensation. Since then we have had to abandon the highly congested river paths in favor of city streets, where,if you are hit by a car or bus, the law will tend to side with you. (Here’s hoping that you survive the incident)
Being both a driver and bicycle rider both my safety and freedom are at risk every time I put rubber on the road. On a lighter note, however, I have learned a rider incurs no responsibility for hitting a dog which is not on a leash. (For those of you who both ride and detest the miserable little beasts this should be some comfort.)