구상금
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the assertion regarding nursing expenses, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff’s medical care benefits paid to I as nursing expenses from the date of the instant accident to the date of the completion of treatment, should be recognized as nursing expenses, on the following grounds: (a) determined that I would have required one adult care for 8 hours a day in the second week due to the instant accident; and (b) calculated the nursing expenses accordingly; and (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s medical care benefits paid to I as nursing expenses should be recognized as nursing expenses.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept and necessity of nursing under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the assertion regarding criminal agreement amount
(a) If the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, who is an insurer of the industrial accident compensation insurance, provides the workers with the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, it shall obtain a right to claim against the third person of the workers affected within the limit of
In addition, in the event that the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, after receiving an insurance benefit from a victim due to an illegal act, subrogates the victim's perpetrator or the insurer for the damage, it may subrogate the victim's damage liability for the whole amount of insurance benefits within the scope of the damage claim calculated by taking account of the victim's negligence, etc., and here, it shall not deduct the money paid to the victim
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60868 Decided January 31, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da23028 Decided December 10, 2015, etc.) (b).
The judgment below
The reasons and the evidence duly admitted are as follows.