(b) Scope of the right to indemnity under the same Article;

B. The State's right to indemnity under Article 34 (1) of the same Act is subrogated to a claim for damages against a third party by the person receiving the insurance benefits, so the scope of the right to indemnity is identical to the scope of the claim for damages against the third party who committed a tort within the limit of the amount of the insurance benefits. Even if the victim suffers from a disaster due to a joint tort committed by the third party and the insured or his employee, the right to indemnity may be exercised regardless of the share to be borne by the insured or his employee, and it is not possible to exercise the right to indemnity against the share to be borne by the insured, as it is anticipated that the third party responding to the State'

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The term "third party who is the other party to the exercise of the right to indemnity" under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a person who is not in an industrial accident notification relationship with the victimized employee and is liable to compensate for damages caused by a tort against the victimized employee. However, the above right to indemnity is not only caused by a tort committed by only a third party, but also caused by a third party, a policyholder or joint tort committed by the insured or his/her employees. The opinion revealed that the member has been a party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da1246, Oct. 10, 1978; 85Da2285, Mar. 8, 198). The reason such as the theory of lawsuit does not require that the above provision is limited to cases where a disaster occurred due to a tort committed by a third party only, and it does not feel the need to change the previous opinion of the victimized employee.

The decision of the court below to the same effect as the above opinion is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the right of indemnity such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The State's right to indemnity under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is subrogated to a claim for damages against a third party by the person receiving the insurance benefits, so the scope of the right to indemnity is identical to the scope of the claim for damages against the third party who committed a tort within the limit of the amount of insurance benefits. Even in the case where the injured party suffers a disaster due to a joint tort with a third party and the insured or his employee, he may exercise the right to indemnity regardless of the burden according to the ratio of fault of the insured or his employee. It is not possible to exercise the right to indemnity for the portion to be borne by the insured, because the third party who responded to the State's claim for indemnity is anticipated in advance to make the re-claim for the portion to be borne by the insured according to the ratio of fault of the third party (see Supreme Court Decision

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the right to indemnity or in violation of the purpose of legislation on the right to indemnity.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)