The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

1. When one of the obligors jointly and severally liable is repaid, or he is indemnified at his own expense, he may exercise the right of indemnity in regard to the portion of other obligors jointly and severally liable; and

(1) Article 425(1) of the Civil Act provides that the provisions concerning joint and several liability shall apply mutatis mutandis to the vicarious and several liability for damages caused by multiple illegal acts or the exercise of the right to indemnity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da20244, Oct. 22, 1991). When one of the joint and several obligors has paid one or more of his/her share of the joint and several liability to obtain joint immunity, he/she may exercise the right to indemnity against the other joint and several

This part of the burden is determined according to the degree of fault of the joint tortfeasor.

(2) On May 24, 2002, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff can exercise the right to indemnity only within the scope of KRW 1,013,66, which is the amount calculated by deducting disability benefits from the portion exceeding 30% of D’s fault ratio (16,29,380 x 70% - 10,395,900) in relation to the lost income after the payment period of temporary disability compensation benefits, while the Plaintiff was entitled to exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendants, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was jointly exempted from liability due to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the Plaintiff, who is the insurer, but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Corporation paid the victim disability benefits of KRW 10,395,90,00.

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

1) The instant accident was caused by the negligence of D, the truck of this case, and F, who operated the truck of this case and the truck of this case, who neglected the duty of safety consideration for the victim. The instant accident was caused by the negligence of D, the truck of this case, and the Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company, etc.” in total, including F and the Defendant Company).

The instant case.