The main text of Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "Where insurance benefits have been paid by a disaster caused by a third party's act, the Corporation shall subrogate the third party to the claim for damages against the person who has received the benefits within the limit of the benefits paid." Here, "the claim for damages against the third party by the person who has received the benefits" is limited to those of the same nature as the insurance benefits paid by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, which are in a mutually perfect relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da45419, Apr. 12, 200; 2012Da41892, Dec. 26, 2013

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, A paid KRW 30,247,190 in total,00,000 to F workers of E, who had been employed in the instant workplace at around 17:0 on October 25, 2010, by negligence while driving the instant vehicle at E, and caused bodily injury to E, which had been employed in the instant workplace. Accordingly, F received medical care benefits from the hospital to September 17, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 22,062,20,200, temporary disability compensation benefits, 8,184,90 in total, KRW 30,247,190,00 in total, and the Defendant, who is the liability insurer of the instant vehicle, separately claimed KRW 40,00 in total,00 in total, and KRW 400 in total,00 in total, and KRW 400 in total,00 in total,00 in the amount of insurance coverage (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”).

However, medical care benefits provided for in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are items corresponding to positive damages such as civil treatment costs, even if they are related to the same medical care costs, and thus it is not possible to subrogate the right to claim compensation for future medical care costs based on the existing medical care benefits since there is no relationship between the existing medical care benefits and future medical care costs. Moreover, given that consolation money is not compensated by insurance benefits provided for in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare

Therefore, examining the above facts in light of the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents as seen earlier, if the Defendant paid F to F the reasonable amount of compensation for future medical expenses and consolation money, this cannot be said to have the same nature of medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits paid by the Plaintiff or to have a mutual complementary relationship, and thus, there is considerable room to deem that the Plaintiff cannot subrogate the right to claim compensation for damages as to this part.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the Defendant to pay the total amount of insurance coverage including this part, after rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant should exclude this KRW 4,00,000 from the scope of subrogation of the Plaintiff’s insurer, without examining the nature of KRW 4,00,000 paid by the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff first acquired the right of subrogation by paying the insurance benefits, so long as the Plaintiff acquired the right of subrogation by way of the Plaintiff’s insurance benefits, the Defendant cannot set up a defense against the Defendant. Such decision of the court below is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision on the scope of exercise of subrogation right under the main sentence of Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and there is a ground for appeal under Article

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding KRW 4,00,000 and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae