1. As to the assertion regarding nursing expenses

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, in light of the parts, degree, age, treatment period, etc. of the injury or the aftermath disability, the Nonparty appears to have required one adult nursing for 8 hours a day of 2 weeks due to the instant accident, and accordingly, the Nonparty calculated the nursing expenses, and that the Plaintiff’s medical care benefits paid to the Nonparty as nursing expenses from the date of the instant accident to the date of the completion of treatment should be recognized as nursing expenses.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept or necessity of nursing under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the assertion regarding criminal agreement amount

A. If the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, which is an insurer of the industrial accident compensation insurance, has paid the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to the worker in question, it shall obtain a third party's claim against the worker in question within the limit of the insurance benefits. In addition, in cases where the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, after having paid the insurance benefits to the victim due to the tort, subrogates the perpetrator of the victim or the insurer of the damage liability, it may subrogate the tortfeasor of the victim or the insurer of the damage liability for the whole amount of the insurance benefits within the limit of the damage liability calculated in consideration of the negligence of the victim. Here, the amount of money paid to the victim as compensation for damage after the insurance benefits of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service shall not be deducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da60868, Jan. 31, 2008;

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

1) Defendant 1, as the owner of (vehicle number omitted), entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant Matz Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s vehicle.

2) On September 16, 2013, Defendant 1: (a) while driving Defendant 1 on or around 09:07, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle, she concealed the back of the Otoba, where he was a worker of ○○○○ (China House) who was on the part of his driver, and caused an accident going beyond the Nonparty’s road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

3) Due to the instant accident, the Nonparty suffered injury, such as an outcoming cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral typosis, external cerebral typosis, and external typosis, and was hospitalized in △ University Hospital and △△ Hospital of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, etc. and received outpatient treatment.

4) On or around March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident and paid medical expenses, etc. from September 16, 2013, which the Nonparty hospitalized in △ University Hospital as medical care benefits, separately paid temporary disability compensation benefits and injury-disease compensation annuities. On or after the completion of medical treatment on November 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid disability compensation annuities falling under class 5-8 of the disability grade.

5) On the other hand, on April 2, 2014, Defendant 1, who was prosecuted for violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, drafted a written agreement from the Nonparty to the effect that “the instant accident was initially agreed upon with Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 for a civil or criminal charge, so withdrawal of the complaint, Defendant 1 did not want to be punished against Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 would be disturbing the wife,” and paid KRW 20 million to the Nonparty under the pretext of the agreement (hereinafter “instant criminal agreement”).

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendants all the insurance benefits borne by the Plaintiff within the scope of the damage claim against the Defendants by the Nonparty, regardless of the amount of the instant criminal agreement. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant criminal agreement that was paid before the completion of the payment of the Plaintiff’s insurance benefits to the Nonparty was part of the property damage compensation, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be subrogated to the Nonparty’s damage claim against the Defendants within the said scope. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)