[구상금][공1996.10.15.(20),3011]
Whether Article 9 of the State Compensation Act should be applied to the exercise of the right to indemnity against the local government of the joint tortfeasor (negative)
Since the decision of the compensation deliberation council under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act is a procedure required in the lawsuit for damages, it is not necessary to go through the procedure of the pre-determination in the lawsuit in which the insurer exercises the right to indemnity against the local government in the relation of the subrogation and the joint tortfeasor, on the ground that the insurer has been the victim
Article 9 of the State Compensation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Yong-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Ulsan-si (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 95Na8218 delivered on April 12, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The decision of the Deliberation Committee on Compensation under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act is a full procedure required in the lawsuit for damages, and therefore, it is not necessary to go through in the lawsuit of this case in which the plaintiff exercises the right to indemnity against the defendant who is in the relationship of the non-party 1 joint tortfeasor on the ground that the plaintiff in subrogation of the non-party 1, who is in the relationship of the local government and the joint tortfeasor, caused damages to the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu500, Jun. 28, 1983). Since it did not go through
Then, by comparing the evidence adopted by the court below with the records, the fact-finding of the court below that the road is caused by the sudden change of the vehicle by Nonparty 2, the injured party, is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation in such fact-finding. There is no reason to discuss this issue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)