[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below rejecting the claim for reimbursement against the company Gap, which caused injury to the worker Eul belonging to the company Gap, on the ground that the company Gap which received cement transport work for building construction work and the company Eul which received the supply of the new construction work and received the supply of the new construction work / [1], was related to the contract

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the claim for reimbursement against the company A after the State recognized the industrial accident insurance benefits as an occupational accident and subsequently rejected the claim for reimbursement against the company A, on the ground that the company A and the company B supplied and supplied cement transport work for the building construction work and the newly constructed construction work were related to the above / [1].

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above new construction of the above new construction of 17:30 on October 18, 1990 by the non-party Kim Jong-si connected the above new construction of the above new construction of the 7-Ga1030 truck owned by the defendant, and operated cement 60 biters from the wooden Port, thereby moving the place to the new construction of the 60-dong office located in Gwangju Seo-gu, Gwangju, and then, the non-party 1, the construction company of the above new construction of cement as above, and caused injury to the non-party 4, which is the construction company of the above new construction of cement as above, the non-party 2, the above new construction of the above new construction of the 5-party 17:30 on the above new construction of the 5-party 1, the above new construction of the 5-party 1, and the defendant concluded the above new construction of the 2-party 2, the above new construction of the 5-party 1, and the above new construction of the 4-party 2, respectively.

Article 15 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4641 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that "the Minister of Labor shall, in case where insurance benefits have been provided due to a disaster caused by a third party's act, subrogate the person who received the benefits to the third party within the limits of the benefits amount: Provided, That this shall not apply in case where two or more business owners who are the insured divided one business at the same place, and the accident has occurred due to the act of workers who have different business owners among them." "one business" provided for in the above proviso means that two or more business owners who are the insured conduct the same business as provided for in Article 4 of the above Act, and conduct the same business (subject matter) within the same place, and conduct the same business (refer to Supreme Court Decision 94Da2925 of Oct. 11, 1994). On the other hand, even if two or more business owners are engaged in the same business in the same place, they shall not be deemed as one of the above business or the same business (see Supreme Court Decision 198Da.

According to the facts found by the court below in this case, the defendant's cement transport work is work completed by loading and unloading cement at a cement port in accordance with a contract with the above Tranc wave and transporting it to the above new construction work site, so it cannot be deemed that the construction work of the above Tranc construction work and the work site of the above cement transport work are the same, and it cannot be deemed that the above cement transport work is divided into one project within the same risk zone for the completion of the above cement construction work.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the Republic of Korea cannot subrogate the right to claim damages against the defendant of the above literacy rate is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the proviso of Article 15 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and it is obvious that such misunderstanding has affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)