The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court below, when the non-party 1, who is the driver of the vehicle belonging to the defendant company, is operating the driver line on the expressway of this case while maintaining the safety distance of 100 meters from the vehicle in front of the road and neglecting his duty of care to safely avoid even if the obstacle appears, and the accident occurred at the point 30 meters in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in this case, and the accident occurred due to the mistake that the vehicle belonging to the industrial accident compensation insurance company of this case, which was living in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of 30 meters in front. The accident in this case is determined on the expressway of the deceased non-party 2, who is the worker in this case, the driver of the vehicle in this case, and even if it stops, the body part of the body of the vehicle in question shall not be invaded with the driver line, and the accident in this case shall be calculated as 700 won in consideration of the negligence of the deceased non-party 2, 2, as stated in its judgment.

In light of the records after reviewing the above measures of the court below, there is a violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative negligence or incomplete deliberation. Therefore, the arguments cannot be adopted.

Judgment on the Defendant’s Grounds of Appeal

However, the "third party" under Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship between the victimized employee and who is liable for damages due to illegal acts against the victimized employee. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that not only the person directly committed the victimized employee but also the person who is liable for damages as the employer of the above perpetrator under Article 756 of the Civil Act, such as this case, includes not only the victimized employee, and the person who is liable for damages is the employer of the workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, because there is no industrial accident compensation insurance relationship between the victimized employee and the other employee, and there is an insurance relationship with the other employee, and the above interpretation does not vary. Therefore, the decision of the court below on this opinion is just and it is clear that the court below recognizes the amount of damages in consideration of the negligence of the victimized employee in the claim for damages, and therefore there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal interpretation pointed out in the original judgment, or there is no error of omission

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)