Auto insurance is fundamentally a system for sharing misfortune. It is a safety net that society provides so that victims of unexpected accidents do not give up treatment and so that a single moment of shock does not destroy their daily lives. That is why victim protection must be robust. However, that protection must also operate on the principle of fair compensation for actual damages. When insurance payouts effectively underwrite excessive treatment or inflated settlement-style payments beyond that scope, the system strays from its original purpose. The reforms to the "minor injury patient system" being pursued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) and financial authorities are focused on correcting precisely this point.
Treatment costs for minor injury patients grew from 1 trillion won in 2019 to 1.4 trillion won in 2024, with traditional Korean medicine treatment costs within that total rising from 650 billion won to 1.14 trillion won. Of the 4.9 trillion won in bodily injury liability insurance payouts in 2024, minor injury treatment costs and "future treatment costs" each accounted for 1.4 trillion won. Yet according to government data, 92% of minor injury patients complete treatment within eight weeks. The majority finish treatment in a short period, but as treatment lengthens, future treatment costs grow — and a significant portion of those costs never leads to actual follow-up care. As a result, criticism has emerged that auto insurance operates not as a system guaranteeing necessary treatment, but as a structure that encourages prolonged treatment and settlement-style payouts. Ultimately, that burden returns to all policyholders in the form of upward pressure on premiums.
From an insurance law perspective, the more fundamental issue lies not in the total amount of treatment costs but in the structure of insurance payouts. Unlike other types of insurance, auto insurance prioritizes payment guarantees first to protect accident victims, while the objectivity of injuries and the causal relationship between the accident and treatment are disputed later. When payment precedes judgment, it creates incentives for patients to opt for prolonged treatment and for medical institutions to choose excessive care. Meanwhile, the insurer's review function weakens. This is inconsistent with both the principles of indemnity-based non-life insurance and the public nature of auto insurance. Therefore, institutional improvements are needed to protect auto accident victims while also ensuring the sustainability of the auto insurance system.
The legislative amendment pre-announced by MOLIT would require minor injury patients rated injury grades 12 through 14 to submit additional documentation such as medical records if they wish to continue treatment beyond eight weeks, with disputes to be mediated through neutral procedures. This is not about blocking treatment. The intent is to verify the necessity of treatment and its relevance to the accident through minimal documentation.
However, institutional improvements must be carried out with precision. Victims who genuinely need treatment must not miss appropriate care due to paperwork burdens. Standard treatment guidelines and transparent dispute mediation criteria should be established, the scope of required documentation should be minimized, and personal information safeguards must be clearly put in place. In particular, elderly patients or those with pre-existing conditions may require prolonged treatment even after minor accidents, so pathways for exceptional review and supplementary documentation should remain open.
The core of reforming the minor injury patient system does not lie in choosing between victim protection and insurance fiscal soundness. The goal is to fully guarantee necessary treatment while reducing prolonged treatment without objective justification and settlement-style payouts. Auto insurance is a public system sustained by the trust of the entire population, not the convenience of a few. MOLIT's reform is not an attempt to undermine patients' rights but a normalization effort to restore the indemnity compensation principle and the sustainability of the auto insurance system. What is needed now is the pursuit of more refined and consistent reform.