The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 90,28,519 won and 31,115,057 won among them, 59,173,462 won per annum from July 15, 2008 to 2015, and 5% per annum from March 5, 2011 to December 1, 201, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 10% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. The monetary payment portion under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties

(1) On June 21, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Lebeter Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “YI”), which covers liability for damages arising in the course of performing the contracted business by the end of July 26, 2007, with the insurance period as until July 26, 2007.

(2) In March 2007, the Defendant opened and operates a new global department store (hereinafter referred to as “instant department store”) in the Gansi-si, Gandong (Seoul).

B. Elevator repair business contract within the department store of this case

(1) The Defendant contracted the maintenance and repair of the elevator to the tescluf elevator company that installed the elevator of the instant department store (hereinafter referred to as “tescluf”).

(2) On March 1, 2007, E.V. entered into an entrustment contract for elevator repair inspection (hereinafter “instant repair inspection contract”) with the following contents on the part of E.V. and its main contents.

Article 4 [Scope of Contract] 1) Permanent Maintenance-related Business (Regular/ Close Check, Closing/Regular/Safety Inspection, Change of Parts) 2) Permanent Maintenance-Related Business (Regular Check-Related Business (Regular Check-Related Business), Permanent Inspection (Name A), Maintenance-Related Maintenance-Related Business (including Maintenance-Related Business (Real Name B), Special Work, Supplementary and Defect-Related Business) Contract and Work related to the Prohibited Sources (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance-Related Maintenance-Related Business) Contract and Maintenance-Related Business (Scope of Repair-Related Business) (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance-Related Business") (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance-Related Elevator Maintenance-Related Business") (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance-Related Elevator Maintenance-Related Business") for the purpose of maintaining the normal operational condition of the elevator, the term " shall be conducted exclusively for the repairs-Related Maintenance-Related Business (Regular Check-Related Business)" (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance-1) and the Guarantee-Related Elevator Maintenance-Related Business (Inspection-Related Business)" (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance-2) , Notification-23, and Inspection-1) Standards for Elevator Maintenance-Related

(3) Under this Decree, Lebbeter had its employees stay in the department store of this case and had them take charge of the work under this case’s repair and checkup contract.

C. A’s occurrence of an insurance accident occurred on March 17, 2007, which was a construction work for opening points at the department stores of this case at the time of around 15:30, in order to install a signboard, an elevator No. 15 (hereinafter “the elevator of this case”). The elevator of this case started from the first floor below the second floor and fell into the first floor below the ground. A suffered an injury, such as a protruding signboard heat between the 6, 7th square, 4, 5th square meters (hereinafter “the accident of this case”).

(d) Payment of insurance money;

(1) By July 14, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 31,115,057 (hereinafter “A”) in total to A.

(2) The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid disability benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits to A, and filed a lawsuit against Lebeer, Defendant, and Plaintiff for a claim for reimbursement. The first instance court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2009Da5111) ruled that “The Plaintiff jointly pays 50,730,038 won to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service and the amount calculated at the rate of 50,730,038 won from February 19, 2008 to January 28, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” was sentenced on January 28, 201. This judgment was dismissed on September 8, 2011; the Defendant, and the Plaintiff's appeal (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2011Da2956) by the Seoul Southern District Court (Supreme Court Decision 201Da8712, Dec. 12, 2018).

(3) On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 59,173,462 to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Labor Welfare Corporation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4, 12, and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Basic legal principles

In a case where multiple parties jointly and severally liable jointly and severally liable are jointly and severally liable, there may be certain portions to be borne according to the principle of equity.

C. If one of the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable has paid one or more of his/her own share to obtain joint immunity, the right to demand reimbursement may be exercised against another vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable in proportion to the share of the share to be borne (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19378, Jan. 27, 2006).

B. Determination

According to the results of the fact-finding and the whole purport of the arguments with respect to the Korea Elevator Safety Institute of Elevator in the first instance and the court of the trial, the following facts: ① the elevator of this case is installed with a 'cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover, ② the report of this case's accident is limited to the contents that the elevator of this case stopped due to speed operation, and the causes of the operation of the elevator of this case were not stated; ③ the normal operation location of the elevator of this case after the accident of this case and the replacement or repair of parts was not necessary; ⑤ the employees of the department department of this case can be found to be suspended.

The following circumstances revealed by these facts and facts recognized in paragraph (1), namely, ① the defendant is the possessor and owner of the elevator of this case who is the owner of the elevator of this case and is liable for damages incurred by the operation (Article 758(1) of the Civil Act), regardless of whether the defendant is negligent, for the elevator of this case, and ② the defendant bears the duty to inspect the elevator of this case and repair the elevator of this case according to the contract of this case, and is not liable even if there is no reason attributable to all the result of the elevator operation, ③ there is no evidence to deem that there was any defect in the speed or other parts of the elevator of this case, and the reason for the operation of the speed is not revealed. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that there was any defect in the speed or other parts of the elevator of this case, the defendant's liability for damages

C. Sub-committee

As an insurer of Lebeter, the Defendant is obligated to dispute the existence of the Defendant’s performance obligation from March 5, 201 to December 1, 2015, to pay 90,288,519 won (i.e., A payment of KRW 31,115,057 + KRW 59,173,462 of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service’s payment + KRW 31,115,057 of the payment of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service) to the Plaintiff in subrogation of the right to demand reimbursement under Article 682 of the Commercial Act (i.e., payment of KRW 31,115,05,00) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date immediately following the date of payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the decision of the court of first instance revokes the unfair part and ordering the defendant to pay the money above. The remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gin-gu

Final Judges