Where an industrial accident is caused by a joint tort by a policyholder and a third party, the extent that the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation may exercise the right to indemnity against a third party.

Article 55-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 199) provides that “where an insured has paid in advance money and valuables equivalent to insurance benefits to an insured person for the same reason as that of the payment of insurance benefits under this Act, and such money and valuables are deemed to have been paid as a substitute for the insurance benefits, the insured shall subrogate the right to receive the insurance benefits of the relevant beneficiary under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” (The provision of the same purport is already prescribed in Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as amended by Presidential Decree No. 11960 of Aug. 27, 1986. The above Enforcement Decree was completely revised on April 15, 199, Article 51 was also prescribed for the same purpose. Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as above, if the insured and the third party were to be compensated for the entire amount of the insurance benefits, then the amount of damages to be recovered by Article 54(1).2).

Articles 54(1) and 55-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100, Dec. 31, 1999); Article 35 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11960, Aug. 27, 1986); Article 51 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14628, Apr. 15, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 92Da23360 decided Dec. 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang), Supreme Court Decision 95Da19751 decided Jan. 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 737), Supreme Court Decision 96Da39080 decided Jan. 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 636) (amended) (amended)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Alternative Passenger Transport Co., Ltd and one other (Attorney Choi Young-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Young-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na34531 delivered on October 12, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the first instance court determined on February 1, 1996 that the non-party 1 and the bereaved family members of the non-party 1, who are employees of the non-party 1, who are employees of the non-party 1, who are the employees of the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1, who are employees of the non-party 1, was on business trip of February 1, 1996 and got on and off the non-party 1, who was driven by the non-party 1, and the above knife of the knife of the above knife of the passenger transportation company (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant company"), caused the accident of the non-party 2, which caused the death of the knife due to the shock of the upper-speed bus owned by the defendant 2, the insurer's liability insurance benefits amount after deducting the total amount of the insurance benefits paid by the non-party 1, the non-party 2, as an industrial accident compensation insurer.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below.

Article 55-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100, Dec. 31, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "where the insured has paid in advance money and valuables equivalent to insurance benefits to the insured for the same reason as the reason for the payment of insurance benefits under this Act to the insured workers, and it is recognized that such money and valuables have been paid as a substitute for the insurance benefits, the insured shall subrogate the right to receive the insurance benefits of the relevant beneficiary under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" (Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11960, Aug. 27, 1986; hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation Act") provides that "if the above Enforcement Decree was completely revised on April 15, 199, Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, as well as Article 51 of the Act, is deleted, it shall be interpreted that the total amount of the insurance benefits can be recovered by 1962.2.

Unlike this, Supreme Court Decisions 96Da39080 delivered on January 24, 1997, 95Da19751 delivered on January 26, 1996, 92Da23360 delivered on December 8, 1992, and 91Da28726 delivered on February 25, 1992, which held that the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service may exercise the right to indemnity against the third party pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, shall be modified to the extent that it is inconsistent with this Opinion.

Therefore, the court below did not examine whether the victim calculated the portion of the non-party company's liability out of the amount of damages that the victim would have contributed to the occurrence of the above industrial accident and even if deducted from the amount of insurance benefits, and held that the plaintiff can claim compensation against the defendants in full after deducting the amount already paid from the other insurer from the total amount of insurance benefits paid by the plaintiff. In the event the industrial accident occurred due to joint tort committed by the policyholder and the third party, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of exercising the right to indemnity against the third party of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation who paid the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) is delivered with Jin-hun Jin-hun, which is written by the Justice Lee Jin-hun, and the Justice Son Ji-yol who is written by the plaintiff