Korea Bodily Injury Loss Adjuster (신체손해사정사) common mistakes
Korea Bodily Injury Loss Adjuster (신체손해사정사) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applying the 과실상계 (comparative negligence) ratio to the full gross damages figure without first separating out the victim's active-loss items (치료비, 개호비 등) that are not subject to negligence offset, or conversely offsetting items that should not be offset.
Candidates memorize 'apply the fault ratio at the end' and treat the whole award as one block, because most textbook examples use a single simplified damage figure. They never practice the multi-line damage schedule where 적극손해 and 소극손해 are computed separately.
What to do instead
Build every practice answer as a line-item table: 적극손해 (치료비, 개호비, 장례비, 기타), 소극손해 (휴업손해, 일실이익), 위자료. Apply 과실상계 only to the items the court practice offsets, then apply the 공제 (과실상계 후 공제) order explicitly. Drill at least ten cases where the offset ratio differs by item.
Using the wrong start date or wrong duration for 휴업손해 and 일실이익 - e.g., running lost income from the accident date when the victim was already retired or unemployed, or ending the loss period at the disability determination date instead of the 가동연한 (usually age 65).
Candidates conflate 휴업손해 (temporary, actual income loss during treatment) with 후유장해에 따른 일실이익 (permanent, from treatment end to 가동연한). The two have different bases, different evidence, and different endpoints, and the exam deliberately mixes them.
What to do instead
Write out the timeline before calculating: 사고일 → 치료종결일 → 장해확정일 → 가동연한(65세). Assign 휴업손해 to the treatment window and 일실이익 to the post-treatment window, and state the income basis (실제소득 vs 도시일용노임 vs 농촌일용노임) with the reason for choosing it. For non-earners, use the applicable 일용노임 and note the 가동능력상실률.
Multiplying the full lost-income figure by the 장해율 without applying the 노동능력상실률-장해율 조정 (the difference between the medical disability rate and the loss-of-earning-capacity rate), and without applying the 코스타스/라이프니츠식 현가 계산 correctly.
Candidates treat the 장해율 from the medical report as identical to 노동능력상실률. In practice the court adjusts the medical rate using the 신체부위별 노동능력상실률표 and, for overlapping disabilities, applies 조정률. Separately, many candidates apply simple discounting instead of the correct 현가系数 for the remaining working years.
What to do instead
Practice converting 장해율 → 노동능력상실률 using the standard body-part table, including the 복합장해 adjustment method. Then compute 일실이익 = (연간소득 × 노동능력상실률) × 현가계수 for the remaining 가동기간, and show the 중간이자 공제 calculation explicitly rather than jumping to a final number.
Misclassifying a disability as 후유장해보험금-eligible when the policy requires 장해진단일 기준 and a minimum observation period (e.g., 6 months for certain injuries), or applying the wrong 장해등급 table (자동차손해배상 보장법 별표 vs 보험약관 장해분류표).
The 자동차손해배상 보장법 후유장해 table and the commercial policy 장해분류표 have different structures and percentages. Candidates also forget that some disabilities cannot be assessed until a fixed period has elapsed, and they assess at the wrong date.
What to do instead
For every disability question, first identify which table governs (법정 후유장해 vs 약관 장해분류표), then check the 진단확정일 and any 대기기간. Memorize the categories where the two tables diverge most (척추, 시력, 청력, 정신신경계) and write the governing clause next to your answer.
Treating 자동차손해배상 보장법의 보험금 지급 기준 (e.g., 자기신체사고 vs 자동차상해, and the 대인배상Ⅰ/Ⅱ 구분) as interchangeable, and applying the wrong 한도 or 면책 to a given fact pattern.
Candidates memorize coverage names without mapping them to the statutory minimum (대인배상Ⅰ) versus voluntary coverage (대인배상Ⅱ, 자동차상해), and they forget that 자동차상해 covers actual loss up to a limit while 자기신체사고 pays fixed amounts by grade.
What to do instead
Build a one-page comparison matrix: coverage name, legal basis, limit, payment basis (정액 vs 실손), and exclusions. For each practice fact pattern, state which coverage applies and why the alternative does not. Drill the 무보험차상해 and 자기차량손해 interactions separately.
Confusing 보험계약법상 고지의무 위반 (breach of duty to disclose) with 위험변경·통지의무, and misapplying the 해지권 행사 기간 (1개월 / 3년) or the requirement that the breach be 중대한 과실 and causally linked to the insured event.
The disclosure duty and the risk-change notification duty have different triggers, different remedies, and different time limits. Candidates also forget that 해지권 is limited to 1 month from knowledge and 3 years from contract formation, and that the insurer cannot terminate if the breach was not causal to the loss.
What to do instead
Create a side-by-side table: 고지의무 vs 위험변경·증가 통지의무 vs 계약 전 알릴 의무, with columns for trigger, remedy, time limit, and causation requirement. For each scenario, identify which duty was breached, whether causation exists, and whether the termination window is still open.
Answering 윤리 questions with generic statements ('act honestly', 'follow the law') instead of citing the specific 손해사정사 윤리강령 or 보험업법 provisions on 이해충돌, 비밀유지, and 금품수수.
Candidates treat ethics as a soft topic and do not study the actual code provisions, so they cannot name the specific obligation (e.g., 손해사정사의 공정성·독립성, 이해관계자로부터의 금품 수령 금지) that a scenario violates.
What to do instead
Memorize the 손해사정사 윤리강령's core articles and the relevant 보험업법 penalty provisions by number. For each ethics scenario, name the specific article violated, the sanction, and the correct course of action (e.g., 회피·신고). Practice writing answers that cite the provision rather than describing good behaviour.
Misapplying 손해배상법 principles - e.g., treating 정신적 손해 (위자료) as subject to the same 과실상계 as property loss, or ignoring the distinction between 채무불이행 and 불법행위 liability and the different 소멸시효 periods.
Candidates learn the Civil Act tort article in isolation and do not connect it to the insurance adjustment context, where the insurer subrogates and the adjustment must reflect the actual liability the insured owes. They also forget the 3-year/10-year prescription distinction.
What to do instead
Map each damage item to its legal basis (적극손해/소극손해/위자료), note whether 과실상계 applies, and state the applicable 소멸시효. Practice fact patterns where the insured's liability is partial and the insurer's subrogation right is limited accordingly.
Calculating 개호비 (nursing care costs) using a flat daily rate without distinguishing between 입원 중 개호 and 통원·재가 개호, and without applying the 개호 필요성 and 개호인 기준 (가족 vs 간병인).
Candidates apply one daily rate across the whole period because they do not know that the court distinguishes actual nursing needs, the qualification of the caregiver, and whether the victim was hospitalized. They also forget that 개호비 is an 적극손해 item not subject to the same offset treatment.
What to do instead
For each case, determine: (1) whether nursing was medically necessary, (2) whether it was 입원 or 재가, (3) who provided it (가족/간병인), and (4) the applicable daily rate. Show the calculation period and rate basis separately for each phase, and note whether the item is subject to 과실상계.
Relying on a single medical record or the claimant's self-report to fix the disability grade, without cross-checking the 진단서, 영상자료, and the treating physician's opinion for consistency, and without applying the 장해진단 시점 rules.
Candidates under time pressure accept the first disability certificate at face value. In practice, disability assessment requires the injury to be stable (증상 고정), and the grade depends on objective findings, not on the claimant's description. Inconsistent records are a common source of adjustment disputes.
What to do instead
For every disability question, list the evidence you would require (진단서, 영상 판독, 근전도, 심리평가 등), state the date the condition became stable, and identify any inconsistency between records. If the facts are insufficient to fix a grade, say so and specify what additional evidence is needed rather than guessing.