2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 20% of the costs of lawsuit, including the costs of supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 7, Gap evidence 8-1 through 6, and Eul evidence 5-1 through 6.

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) for business such as compensating for an employee’s occupational accident, and the UP Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “NP Engineering”) has awarded a contract to the Nonparty (the Nonparty (the Nonparty operating Daejeon Power) for the electrical construction part of the 783-20 EF-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which he performed as an insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Defendants are siblingss as a waterproof hole belonging to genetic engineering (the Defendant 1’s punishment).

B. The Defendants, around 10:00 on August 30, 2002, on the ground that the Intervenor, an employee belonging to Daejeon Power, entered the work site while carrying out the floor waterproof construction work at the underground parking lot of the Newly constructed construction site and the underground parking lot of the 2002. Defendant 2, who is an employee belonging to Daejeon Power, had spathdd with the Intervenor, and disputed between Defendant 1 and the Intervenor, and Defendant 1 had left hand after the Intervenor, such as the Intervenor, etc., left hand, caused the Intervenor to suffer from the injury, such as the 1-2 unstable trend, damage to light water, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”).

C. Defendant 2 was sentenced to suspension of indictment due to the instant accident, and Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment for four months from the Seoul District Court (2003No2170) on July 2, 2003.

D. From August 30, 202 to December 2, 2004, the Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid 132,37,460 won in total, including KRW 38,863,730 as temporary layoff benefits, KRW 76,690 as disability benefits, and KRW 17,253,040 as medical care benefits (+ KRW 8,016,860 + KRW 8,580,570 as Class 2 medical care benefits + KRW 65,610).

2. Whether liability for damages and the right of indemnity have occurred;

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, since the accident of this case occurred due to the defendants' intentional tort, the defendants are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the supplementary intervenor. Since the plaintiff paid the insurance money under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act to the supplementary intervenor pursuant to Articles 40, 41 and 42 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act, the plaintiff may exercise the plaintiff's right to compensate for damages against the defendants of the supplementary intervenor within the limit of each insurance amount pursuant to Article 54 (1) of the above Act.

B. The defendants' assertion and judgment

(1) The argument

The defendants are auxiliary intervenors who are workers belonging to the Daejeon Power Co., Ltd. and the defendants who are employees belonging to the U.S. engineering, who are employees belonging to the Daejeon Power Co., Ltd., and the defendants do not constitute "third party" under Article 54 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act. Even if the defendants are third parties under the above Act, the accident in this case occurred due to violence due to private relations between the supplementary intervenors and the defendants, and thus, it does not constitute occupational accident.

(2) Determination

First, if a worker suffers from an occupational accident due to an act of a worker employed by the same business owner, it is reasonable to see that the worker is excluded from a third party's "the third party" who is the counterpart to the exercise of the right to indemnity as prescribed in the above provision of the above provision, as a person who has an industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with the worker directly or indirectly with the business owner who is the insured. However, the reason why the harmful act is excluded from the "the third party" who is the counterpart to the claim for compensation on the ground that the worker is the worker who is the same business owner as the victimized worker, can be viewed as one dangerous with the danger of the workplace such as the machinery and apparatus in the workplace. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Korea Labor Welfare and Welfare Corporation should be ultimately liable for the occupational accident caused by realizing the risk in accordance with the social insurance or liability insurance nature of the industrial accident compensation insurance (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da33691, Dec. 24, 2004). Thus, the defendants' assertion related to the above occupational accident is no longer relevant to the intervenor's exercise of safety force.

Next, occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act refers to an accident caused by another person's act in the course of performing his/her duties. If an employee suffers from an accident caused by another person's violence, it is recognized as an occupational accident if there is a proximate causal relation with his/her duties as a reality of human relations or duties inherent in the workplace or accompanied with ordinary risks. However, if it is due to a private relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, or if the victim stimulates the other party beyond the scope of his/her duties, it cannot be recognized as an occupational accident (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8587 delivered on January 24, 1995). In this case, it can be deemed that the supplementary intervenor's negligence of reporting the safety at the flood control site was caused by the occurrence of this case. However, it cannot be deemed that the above act exceeded social reasonableness, or that the Defendants stimulates the Defendants, or caused violence to the Defendants beyond the limit of his/her duties. Thus, the accident in this case does not constitute occupational accident.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income;

The actual income loss equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity of the Intervenor lost due to the accident in this case shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in this case according to the method of simple interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows (2), on the basis of the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(1) Gender: Male and date of birth; on July 27, 1953; on the basis of age, 49 years old and 1 months old at the time of the accident.

② The status of occupation and income: The Intervenor engaged in the electricity industry at the time of the instant accident, and was able to obtain at least the income of the internal major personnel until he reaches the age of 60, and the wage of the internal major personnel around September 2002 is KRW 72,268 per day and KRW 81,196 per day around September 2004 (the Plaintiff asserted that the income of the supplementary intervenor is equivalent to KRW 2 million per month, but it is insufficient to recognize it only with the statement of evidence No. 6 and the testimony of the Nonparty, and there is no other evidence to prove it).

(3) Degree of loss of operational capacity.

The period of hospitalization (from August 30, 2002 to October 14, 2002): 100%

(C) From the following day, the 35% loss of labor capacity: The 35% loss rate of labor capacity is 35% in the state of permanent disability due to the incomplete damage to light water and the depression in light of the 1-2 situation.

(2) Calculation

(1) Loss by lost income during the period of suspension of business: 15,238,834 won.

- From the date of a disaster to the date of hospitalization (one month from August 30, 202 to October 14, 2002)

72,268 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 100% ¡¿ 0.958 =1,583,218 won

- Until the end of treatment (from October 15, 2002 to November 9, 2004), 26 months

72,268 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 35% ¡¿ 24.500 (25.5358-0.9958) =13,655,616 won.

(2) Loss caused by postnatal disability: 48,876,416 won.

From November 10, 2004 to July 26, 2013

81,196 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 35% ¡¿ 78.1761 (103.719-25.5358) = 48,876,416 won

(b) Medical expenses: 17,253,040 won;

[Reasons for Recognition] A, Gap 1 through 4, Gap 8-1 through 6, Gap 11-1, Eul 11-2, and Eul 3, the result of the physical appraisal entrusted to the president of the relevant court, the empirical rule, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) Set-off of negligence;

However, in light of the above facts and the circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, the accident in this case was caused by the Defendants’ failure to take the part in the safety line while the Intervenor was in a safe line, even though the Defendants completed the preparation of work for the waterproofing construction of underground parking lots and completed the safety line so that other people may not have access to the underground parking lot, and during that process, the Intervenor’s negligence was caused by the Intervenor’s injury in need of two weeks’s treatment against the Defendants’ assault. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the ratio exceeds 30% of the Plaintiff’s manager.

(a) Loss from lost income during the period of suspension: 10,667,183 won (15,238,834 won x 70%)

(b) Loss from lost income due to residual disability: 34,213,491 won (48,876,416 won x 70%)

(c) Medical expenses: 12,077,128 Won (17,253,040 Won x 70%)

4. Scope of indemnity;

(a) Restriction on indemnity;

In a case where the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, which paid industrial accident compensation insurance to victimized workers, exercises the right of reimbursement against a third party who is a tort, the scope of the right of reimbursement shall be limited to the amount of the claim for damages against the third party of the victimized workers who share the subject matter of the lawsuit with the insurance benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da39080, Jan. 24, 1997). Since temporary disability compensation benefits paid by the Plaintiff to the subsidized intervenors exceed the lost income during the period of suspension due to treatment, it is within the scope of lost income (10,67,183, etc.). Since the lump sum disability compensation exceeds the lost income after the suspension period, each claim can be made within the scope of lost income (34,213,49

(b) Loss deduction;

(1) The parties' assertion

The Defendants asserted that, since the deposit 12.7 million won deposited by Defendant 1 to the Intervenor was paid as part of the amount of damages, it should be deducted in calculating the damages of this case against the Intervenor’s Intervenor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the deposit should be deducted from the claim amount of this case seeking only lost income and medical expenses, merely because it was paid as consolation money.

(2) Determination

In full view of the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2-2, Defendant 1 deposited 12,70,000 won as a civil and criminal agreement on June 24, 2003 with the person who was tried to violate the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Seoul District Court 2003No2170) as the supplementary intervenor on June 24, 2003, and the fact that the supplementary intervenor reserved and received an objection as part of the damage compensation amount on July 2 of the same year is recognized.

However, considering the degree of injury suffered by the Intervenor in the instant accident, the age, academic background, occupation, property, and family relationship of the Intervenor, the background of the instant accident, the degree of negligence of the Intervenor, and other various circumstances revealed in the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the said money was paid as criminal agreement. Therefore, the said money is not the money of the nature to be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiff 56,957,802 won (10,67,183 won + 34,213,491 won + 12,077,128 won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 5, 2005 to January 26, 2007, which is the date the judgment of this case is rendered, and the amount of damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Justice)