[1] In the case where the victim's negligence theory is applied, the compensation relationship between the joint tortfeasor

[2] The scope of compensation in a case where the joint operator of the victim who incurred medical expenses prior to the judgment of the court in the damages lawsuit to which the theory of negligence on the part of the victim was applied claims against the other joint tortfeasor

[1] In case where the amount of damages is calculated by the negligence of the soldier who driven the vehicle owned by the victim Gap against the victim Gap who is a joint tortfeasor between the victim Gap and the other joint tortfeasor Eul, considering the whole negligence of the victim, it is consistent with the purport of the damage compensation system that the victim did not have any part of the joint and several liability in relation to the part of the amount of damages.

[2] In a case where the insurer of the victim joint operator Gap, who was the joint operator of the victim, was jointly exempted from liability due to the payment of the medical expenses of the victims before the judgment in the damages lawsuit to which the theory of negligence on the part of the victim was applied, the part on the damage for the original medical expenses (the part equivalent to the ratio of the victim's negligence) of the perpetrator is calculated by considering the whole amount of the damage of the victim's side as seen above, as seen in the above, as seen in the judgment of the victim's negligence, and there is no part on the victim's negligence in relation to the above amount. On the other hand, the part equivalent to the ratio of the victim's negligence in the above medical expenses paid, which was actually deducted in the damages lawsuit as seen in the above, was appropriated for the amount without the victim's fault, and thus, the insurer of the victim's insurance is entitled to exercise the right to indemnity against the insurer Eul and Eul with respect to the whole amount actually deducted from the victim's negligence in the damages lawsuit (the victim's family member loaned the victim's family member, who incurred the accident.)

Articles 425 and 760 of the Civil Act, Article 682 of the Commercial Act

Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Uniform Jung-gu Co., Ltd. and one other (Defendant Law Firm Dongdong General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Yong-i et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 94Na17359 delivered on May 26, 1995

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiff was not liable for damages against the non-party 2, who was not liable for damages against the non-party 1, 7, and the non-party 2, who was not liable for damages against the non-party 1, 5, and the non-party 2, who was not liable for damages against the non-party 4, the non-party 1, 5, and the non-party 2, who was not liable for damages against the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, who was liable for damages against the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, who was liable for damages against the non-party 2, for the non-party 3, the non-party 1, who was liable for reimbursement of damages against the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, the above accident.

However, the plaintiff, as the insurer of the non-party 3, paid medical expenses for the non-party 3, and the non-party 3 was responsible for the traffic accident occurred due to the non-party 2's negligence. The victim's negligence in the damages lawsuit brought against the non-party 3 and the defendant unification intermediary, which caused the same traffic accident due to the non-party 1's negligence. As long as the amount of damages is calculated by considering the whole damages caused by the non-party 2's negligence in the damages lawsuit brought against the non-party 3 and the defendant unification intermediary, the amount of damages is in accord with the purpose of the compensation system that provides guidance to the non-party 3's apportionment of damages. Meanwhile, when the plaintiff spent the above medical expenses to the non-party 3 with the liability of the non-party 3, as seen above, the part of the damages for the treatment expenses that the tortfeasor is responsible for the non-party 2's negligence in the damages lawsuit, which is the part of the non-party 3's indemnity and the amount actually paid to the non-party 3's negligence.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the ratio of the burden of Non-party 3 and the defendant unification mid-term is 5:5 based on the fault ratio of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, and that the plaintiff's compensation is recognized only for the portion exceeding the above non-party 3's share out of the treatment expenses spent by applying it as is, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of the right of indemnity in relation to the claim of indemnity between the joint tortfeasor who applied the victim's negligence, which affected

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 a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)