The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The lower court, on the first ground of appeal, determined that even if the Plaintiff paid medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits to E pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), since there is no mutual supplement relationship between the medical care benefits and the future treatment expenses, and the consolation money is not compensated to insurance benefits as stipulated under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the Plaintiff cannot subrogate the right to claim damages for future treatment expenses and consolation money that E has against the Defendant, and therefore, if the Defendant paid to E in the future treatment expenses and consolation money, each payment should be deducted from the liability insurance amount that the Defendant would have to pay to E.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the claim for reimbursement under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, or by violating the Supreme Court precedents, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined as follows: (a) since the total amount of medical care benefits the Plaintiff paid up until March 4, 2014 does not exceed KRW 11,267,690, the Defendant still has a duty to pay liability insurance proceeds for the injury of KRW 8,732,310 to E, except for the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages acquired on behalf of the Plaintiff as of March 4, 2014; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant paid liability insurance proceeds to E by paying to H Hospital on March 4, 2014; and (c) accordingly, KRW 8,732,310, which can be deemed to have been considered to have been paid by the Defendant to E, the damage claimant, was effectively repaid to E, and thus, the Defendant should be deducted from the liability insurance proceeds to be paid in connection with the instant injury.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the claim for reimbursement under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, or violating the Supreme Court precedents, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.