2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 90,090,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 30, 201 to June 11, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties

(1) On October 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the insured worker's accident compensation insurance (hereinafter referred to as "insurance contract") under which the insured worker bears legal liability for damages exceeding the amount of accident compensation paid under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to occupational accidents caused by the insured worker. The contractor and the insured: gender Dong, insurance period: from October 20, 2009 to October 20, 2010; the maximum amount of compensation per capita: 50 million won per capita; 500,000,000,000 won per accident; and 50,000,000,000 won per capita; hereinafter referred to as "compensation only for the workers belonging to Sungdong-dong: domestic worker's accident compensation insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as "insurance contract").

(2) On October 24, 2009, the Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as "unit insurance contract") with the content of "A, insurance period: from October 24, 2009 to October 24, 2010, personal compensation 1 (100,000,000), and personal compensation 2 (2) personal compensation : Provided, That the insurance period is from October 24, 2009 to March 24, 2010)."

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

(1) At around 16:00 on January 8, 2010, C, a worker of Sungdong-dong, sent a signal with 10 meters of the length of the instant steel structure transported from the floor to the upper part of the steel structure on the top of the left pressle of the pent-type roof of the instant steel structure, which is a height of 6 meters above the ground, at the construction site of the D office Dong-dong and the steel structure located in Yongnam-gun-gun-gun and the warehouse dong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “instant work”). At around 16:0 on January 8, 2010, C, a worker of Sungdong-dong, sent one hand a signal with a total of 10 meters in length, which was transported from the floor to the upper part of the steel structure (hereinafter referred to as the “instant work”).

(2) The work process at the time is to be conducted by two persons: (a) combining both ends of the boom of the instant C steel on the floor with the stringing end thereof; (b) connecting the above booming boom with A voluntarily-type to approximately 22 meters; (c) manipulating the booming boom, thereby raising approximately 6 meters high height to the roof of the steel structure; and (d) receiving the boom from the roof and the right side of the steel structure in order to receive it on the roof of the steel structure, the two persons received each part of the C which was attached to the upper end of the said steel structure, which was connected to the upper end of the said steel structure; (c) after the booming of the booming boom at the bottom, C sent a signal for the operation of boom at the front end of the said steel structure; and (d) At the time of the instant accident, at the same time, C sent the booming of the above boom to the upper end of the C, which was at the above 3rd.

(3) At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the customs of the Jeonnam Cancer area, which is the place of the instant accident, was 3.6m/s of wind, and the instant work was carried out according to the direction of Sungdong-N. The instant work was conducted prior to the accident’s accident, and there was no measures such as cutting of voltage devices, installing a protective device, installing a watcher, posting monitors, and installing high voltage lines.

(c) Payment of insurance proceeds;

On August 27, 201, the Plaintiff paid C insurance proceeds of KRW 257,40,00 for insurance proceeds under the insurance contract No. 1. This is the amount calculated by deducting C’s labor disability loss rate of KRW 111,501 on the basis of C’s diversified reflects, etc., KRW 9,824,00 for future treatment costs, KRW 11,50 on the market wage schedule, KRW 268,043,675, KRW 2675, KRW 205 on the date following the end of the medical care period ( December 2, 2010), KRW 205, KRW 264, KRW 74, KRW 749, KRW 749, KRW 250 on the market wage schedule, KRW 265, KRW 245, KRW 40 on the day from 205, KRW 204 on the date following the date of completion of the medical care period (i.e., KRW 2640, KRW 25345, 325,240.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 10 through 12, Gap evidence 15, 16, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including various numbers), Gap evidence 4 through 9, Gap evidence 17, and 18, Gap's witness C, and Eul's testimony (excluding the part which is not trusted later), the whole purport of the oral argument

[Evidence Evidence] Part of Evidence Nos. 4 through 9, Evidence No. 17, and Evidence No. 18, and Evidence Nos. 3, A, and E

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

(1) The instant accident occurred when A, the driver of the instant Kakele, was in high voltage lines in the Working Group, and was in high voltage lines within the Working Group, after examining the existence of the instant Kakele lines, taking preventive measures to remove the risks in advance or measures to take safety measures to ensure safety measures, etc., or demanding sexual dynamics to take safety measures, and neglecting the safety obligations to proceed with construction after the safety measures have been completed. The instant accident is caused by C’s fault, such as a steering house, etc. in which the instant Kakele had been in high voltage lines connected to the instant Kakelelelelelelelele, and the negligence in the management and supervision of sexual dynamics, resulting in the collision of the instant Kakelele, and the Defendant is liable for compensation for all damages suffered by the deceased under the Civil Act and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and Article 724 of the Commercial Act as an insurer of the said Kakelelelelele.

(2) On August 27, 201, the Plaintiff, as an insurer of the instant insurance contract for the instant accident, offseted the deceased’s negligence with the insurance proceeds, and paid KRW 257,420,00, which is an adequate amount of damages after deducting the insurance benefits received from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and discharged all damages related to the said accident.

(3) Meanwhile, in the instant accident, the fault ratio between A and Sungdong area is 70:30,00, and the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 180,180,000, out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the said Cricker A who caused the instant accident, equivalent to KRW 70,000, out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff.

(4) In addition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the indemnity amount of KRW 38,610,00 for double insurance [=7,220,000 (=257,400,000 x 30%) ¡¿ 50%) separately.

(5) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 218,790,00 (=180,180,000 + KRW 38,610,000) according to the legal principles of joint tort and double insurance.

B. Defendant

(1) In addition, the accident of this case is not an accident during automobile operation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and at the time of the accident of this case, A does not have a duty to seek compensation against the Plaintiff, since the unexpected wind is unforeseeable and the C is exposed to high-tension, as it is difficult for A, who is merely an article of C, to take preventive measures against the reduction of power, and there is no negligence in the accident of this case since A did not have any negligence in manipulating the boomer, and as at the time of the accident of this case, A did not have a duty to claim compensation against the Defendant.

(2) Preliminaryly, even if A’s negligence is acknowledged, ① future treatment costs recognized by the Plaintiff with respect to the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be related to antiscam removal, and C’s openings can be recognized only to the extent of two hours per adult per day. ② The amount of double insurance is KRW 50 million for the Plaintiff, and the amount of double insurance is KRW 257,420,524 for the Defendant’s claim, and thus, the liability ratio according to the monetary ratio should be applied.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

The insurer of an insurance contract that covers one joint tortfeasor as the insured under Article 682 of the Commercial Act shall pay insurance money, and the insured's right to indemnity against another joint tortfeasor shall be established in proportion to the portion of the liability of the other joint tortfeasor when the insurer who has concluded each insurance contract with each joint tortfeasor is liable to compensate for damages directly in relation to the victim of each joint tortfeasor's joint tortfeasor's liability. Thus, if the insurer who has concluded each insurance contract with each joint tortfeasor directly bears the liability for damages under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act in relation to the victim of each joint tortfeasor's liability, the insurer who has paid the damages to the victim in excess of the share of the liability can directly exercise the right to indemnity against the portion to be borne by the insurer of the other joint tortfeasor's liability.

On the other hand, if the two liability insurance contracts do not share both the subject matter, i.e., the insurable interest and the content and scope of the insurance accident, but are overlapping in considerable parts, and if the accident occurred related to the overlapping insurable interest, the two liability insurance contracts constitute double insurance as provided in Article 725-2 of the Commercial Act to the extent that the insured, insurable interest, and the insurance accident and the insurance period overlap. In this case, each insurer is jointly and severally liable for compensation according to the ratio of the insured amount of each insurer, and the insurer in the overlapping insurance relationship can exercise the right to indemnity against the part of the other insurer's liability for compensation in the overlapping insurance relationship calculated according to the ratio of the insured amount of each insurer's insurance contract or Article 672 (1) of the Commercial Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 725-2 of the Commercial Act.

Each of the above rights of indemnity can be exercised first and simultaneously as long as the requirements for establishment of each right of indemnity are met. However, in a case where satisfaction is obtained from one right of indemnity, the scope of other rights of indemnity is limited to the portion of the obligor’s apportionment by other rights of indemnity, excluding the remaining parts of satisfaction as above (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da53499, Dec. 24, 2009; 2009Da42819, Dec. 24, 2009).

B. Determination as to the claim for indemnity due to joint tort

(1) Determination as to whether the instant carcke work constitutes operation under the Private Ship Act

Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the "Operation Act" defined as "the use or management of a motor vehicle according to its usage regardless of whether it carries persons or things," and the use of a motor vehicle according to its usage refers to the use of various devices installed in accordance with its respective purpose of equipment. It includes the use of various auxiliary devices such as opening and closing a door at the front and rear stage of the driving, even if the motor vehicle is not in the state of driving. Thus, the "operation" under the Private Ship Act is not the same concept as the "driving" under the Road Traffic Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da595, Aug. 23, 1994; 98Da30834, Nov. 12, 1999).

In this case, in addition to the purport of the argument in the statement No. 2-1 to No. 3 of the evidence No. 2, the defendant's allegation that the accident of this case occurred during the operation of the car boom since the defendant's boom boom boom boom was transferred to work place for the purpose of the work of this case, which is, at the time of the accident of this case, the car boom boom boom cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cke cl.

(2) Establishment of joint tort

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 10 through 12, Gap evidence 15, 16, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including various numbers), Gap evidence 4 through 9, Gap evidence 17, and 18, Gap evidence 17, and Eul evidence 18 (excluding each part not trusted in the future), Gap's witness C, Eul, and Eul's testimony (excluding each part not trusted in the future), as acknowledged above, the accident of this case can be confirmed to be sufficiently confirmed by considering the following circumstances which can be seen by considering the whole purport of the oral argument in light of Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 10 through 12, Eul evidence 15, 16, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 17, and Eul evidence 17, and Eul evidence 18 (excluding each part not trusted in the future) from the steel structure of this case from the roof of the steel structure of this case.

① As to the circumstances of the instant accident, even if it is difficult to use the aforementioned medical care benefit statement (Evidence No. 17), written statement (Evidence No. 18), and written confirmation (Evidence No. 4) prepared immediately after the instant accident, C received the type C river above the steel structure at the scene of the instant accident, and entered the C river-type which was transported to an abnormal stude, with the view to the high-tension, and the opposite side of the instant accident was caused by electric shock, and the witness A also stated to the above purport. However, even if the witness A made a statement at the time of the instant accident to the effect that it was difficult to use the aforementioned medical care benefit statement No. 18 at the time of the instant accident, it was difficult to find out that there was no other reason to believe that there was no other reason for the instant accident, and that there was no reason to believe that there was no other reason to believe that the instant accident was caused by the 10th of the date of the instant accident, and that there was no reason to believe that it was no reason to believe that the Defendant’s 4th of the instant accident.

② With respect to the instant work, the witness of the trial court stated in this court that two workers on the ground of this case were unable to see the central part of the 10-type Dam cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm., which were objectively cm cm cm cm cm.

(3) On the other hand, as to whether a boomer A was boomed or boomed with C at the time of the instant accident, it is difficult to see that the boomer C was boomed, and that the boomer C was boomed or boomed with C at the time of the instant accident, and that the boomer C was boomed with C at the time of the instant accident, and that the boomer’s testimony was not boomed or boomed with C, and that the boomer’s testimony was not boomd with C at the time of the instant accident, and that the boomer’s testimony was not boomed or boomed with C at the time of the instant accident, and that the boomer’s testimony was not boomed with C at the time of the instant accident, and that the boomer’s first time at the time of the instant accident cannot be boomed with C at the time of the accident.

④ In full view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant accident, in the end, did not affect the wind, went back to the location of C-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type c-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d- type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d-type d- type

On the other hand, Gap evidence 4 (written confirmation), Gap evidence 5 (written disability benefit assessment), Gap evidence 6 (written confirmation), Gap evidence 7 (Interim report), Gap evidence 8 (written agreement), Gap evidence 17, Gap evidence 18 (Medical Care Benefit Application), part of Gap's witness Gap evidence 18 (accident 10 combinations) and Gap's testimony at the time of the accident, Eul's testimony to the effect that Gap's Damga's Dam Dam Dam alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm alm al.).

Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of A, who neglected to take appropriate measures so as to avoid a safe manipulation of crums or to minimize risks, despite the fact that the sexual Dong area, which was comprehensively managed and supervised the scene of the accident, was a high-tension line connected to the scene of the accident, and did not take measures to prevent the safety accident, and that the C type river connected to the C type, which was connected to the C type, using crums, may sckes, and that the negligence of A, who neglected to take appropriate measures to avoid a safe manipulation of crums or to minimize risks.

(3) Scope of the right of indemnity

In light of the circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, such as the background of the accident of this case, the relationship between Sungdong and A, and the cause of the injury of this case, the main responsibility for the occurrence of the accident of this case lies in the sexual Dong-dong who is an employer of A and C, and is obligated to supervise and supervise the site of this case. Thus, the ratio of responsibility between the sexual Dong-dong and A shall be 80:20.

Furthermore, it is deemed necessary for the Plaintiff to open for four hours a day by adult in light of C’s injury level and current status. Moreover, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of compensation for injury calculated by deducting the amount of disability benefits of KRW 124,224,100 from the amount of industrial accident compensation benefits received by C at KRW 352,418,574 after the Plaintiff considered C’s negligence as 35% from the amount of lost income of KRW 268,043,675, 264, 314,749, and the amount of negligence of KRW 264,52,574 from the amount of injury compensation benefits received by C at KRW 29,226,00,00, plus KRW 257,420,524 from the amount of injury compensation.

Therefore, the defendant, the insurer of A, who is the joint tortfeasor, has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 51,480,000 (=the plaintiff's repayment amount of KRW 257,400,000 x A's liability ratio of 20%) and damages for delay.

C. As to the claim for indemnity based on the double insurance doctrine

(1) Whether the case constitutes double insurance

(A) The term double insurance means a case where several insurance contracts are concluded simultaneously or in succession with respect to the same accident as the subject matter of the same insurance contract, and the total amount of the insured amount exceeds the insurable value. The insurance period of each contract is not required to be shared, but duplicate insurance can only be conducted for the overlapping period, and even if the policyholder is not the same, the insured should be the same. In other words, in order to constitute double insurance, ① insurance period, ② insurable interest, ③ insurance accident, ④ the insured should be the same as the insurance period, ② the insured amount.

(B) First, the insurance period of the first and second insurance contracts overlaps for about five months, and the instant accident occurred during the overlapping period of the instant insurance contract.

(C) Next, the insured interest of each of the insurance contracts of this case (B) and the insured events (III), the purpose of the first insurance contract is to compensate for damages suffered by the insured in excess of the amount of compensation paid by the insured in accordance with the laws and regulations related to accident compensation due to occupational accidents occurred to the insured workers. The purpose of the second insurance contract of this case is to compensate for damages suffered by the insured as a result of the insured's accident that occurred during the possession, use, and management of the insured motor vehicle. The above insurance contract of this case is to compensate for damages suffered by the insured as a result of the insured's liability for damages to a third party, including a "worker due to an accident during the insurance period." In addition, since the accident of this case is an occupational accident and an automobile accident, all of the insurance contracts of this case are covered by each of the insurance contracts of this case.

(D) Finally, whether the insured of each of the instant insurance contracts (D) is the same, and the Plaintiff is the driver and the user status of the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff, as Sungdong-gu is not only the Plaintiff’s consent to the operation of the instant Kaman, but also the Plaintiff is the insured of the instant 2 insurance contract. The Defendant did not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff constitutes the insured of the instant Kaman’s second insurance contract. The Defendant leased the instant Kaman, an insured vehicle, from Sungdong-dong, to direct and supervise work, and used the instant Kaman at the construction site of the instant case, as seen earlier, it is deemed as the Plaintiff, the registered insured of the second 2 insurance contract. Accordingly, since Sungdong-dong is the insured of the instant 1 insurance contract and the insured of the instant 2 insurance contract, each of the instant insurance contracts overlap each of the instant 2 insurance contracts.

(E) Each insurance contract of this case overlaps part of the insurance period, and ② insurable interest is common part of the insurance period, and ③ the accident of this case constitutes all the insurance accidents stipulated in each insurance contract, and ④ the overlapping insurance for the total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff is overlapping the status of the insured among the insured in each insurance contract.

(f) Therefore, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendant’s portion of the insurance money paid to C.

(2) Scope of indemnity amount

In the case of double insurance, each insurer shall pay insurance proceeds calculated by the formula of "amount of damages (or amount of liability for compensation) x amount of liability for compensation under each contract / total amount of liability for compensation calculated by each insurance contract with no other insurance contract. The Plaintiff's liability for compensation is limited to cases exceeding the scope of compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. As seen earlier, the amount of liability for compensation is limited to 257,420,524 won. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 205,973,786 won (amount of liability for compensation) / amount of compensation calculated by the formula of "total amount of liability for compensation calculated by each insurance contract ......... The amount of compensation is limited to 257,420,00 won at the Plaintiff's withdrawal amount of 257,480,000 won (see Supreme Court Decisions 205,920,920 x 381,64,2648,254,25467,25

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 90,000 won (i.e., indemnity amount of KRW 51,480,000 due to joint tort + indemnity amount of KRW 38,610,000 due to double insurance) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from June 30, 201 to June 11, 2015, the date following the Plaintiff’s payment of insurance money, which is the day following the date when the Defendant’s payment of insurance money was made, for disputes over the existence and scope of the obligation, by the Defendant from June 30, 201 to June 11, 2015, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions are unfair, part of the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the above-mentioned judgment shall be ordered to pay the above-mentioned amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

The fixed number of judges

Judges Lee Jae-chul