B. In the relationship between Company A and Company B’s liability for joint tort by employers’ responsibility, whether the State is obligated to respond to the claim for reimbursement of injury, regardless of whether the State is the insured under Article 11 of the same Act, in case where Party B’s insurer paid for the injury worker A after paying the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to Party B (affirmative)

B. In relation to the relationship between Gap and Eul company's joint tort liability based on employer's liability, if the State paid the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to the victimized workers Gap, and the insurer Byung under the Commercial Act of Eul by exercising the right to indemnity against Eul, the employer cannot be held liable for damages of the victimized workers as joint tortfeasor of the business owner for the industrial accident compensation insurance. Thus, Gap is liable to pay the exempted amount to Byung who acquired the right to indemnity due to joint tort liability as joint tortfeasor of Eul regardless of the insured under Article 11 of the same Act regardless of whether the injured workers are the joint tortfeasor.

(1) On April 23, 198, the court below stated that the non-party 1, 2, and 3, etc., who are employees of the defendant company, were not entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who were not entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2, were entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who were entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who were entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 4, who were entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who were entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who were entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1, who were not entitled to claim compensation for damages from the above non-party 1, the above.

(2) Article 15 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 411 of Apr. 1, 1989) refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship with an victimized employee and is liable for damages caused by tort against the victimized employee. However, the right to indemnity can be exercised even in cases where the damaged employee was caused by a third party's joint tort. In such cases, the right to indemnity can be exercised regardless of the share of the insured or his employee's fault, and the third party who has complied with the State's indemnity cannot be held entitled to the right to indemnity for the portion of the insured's share of the liability for indemnity, regardless of the share of the insured's fault, until the insured or his employee's fault should be re-determined to the insured's share of the liability for indemnity. (See Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu2285 delivered on Mar. 8, 198; 87Meu196 delivered on Jun. 27, 198; 29Da169798, Feb. 29, 19898.

Unlike tort liability under the Civil Act, the Labor Standards Act provides an industrial accident compensation insurance system under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in order to provide the employer with special responsibility to compensate for any loss caused by occupational accidents and to ensure effectiveness of this system without asking the employer's intention or negligence in terms of guaranteeing the employee's right to life. This insurance system is characterized by social security beyond non-life insurance under the Commercial Act, and Article 11 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act only provides for the insurer's duty to pay industrial accident compensation insurance, liability for damages under the employer's Civil Act, the right to claim for industrial accident insurance benefits and the right to claim for damages against the victimized employee, and it does not affect or regulate the relation of indemnity between the joint tortfeasor. In this case, if the above company performed liability against the non-party 1 before the payment of insurance benefits, the country does not provide insurance benefits to the extent of compensation paid under Article 15 (2) of the Act, and the above company is not entitled to exercise the defendant's right to indemnity in whole, including the amount equivalent to the amount of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

On the other hand, the proviso of Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act seems to have been newly established in terms of the legislative policy, not from the nature of industrial accident compensation insurance or the legal logic, but from the legislative policy point of view of protecting the insured, it cannot be said that the said proviso affects the interpretation of the law in this case where a disaster occurred prior to the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as to Articles 15 (1) and 11 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the arguments are with merit within the scope of this point.

(3) Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.