In addition, the necessity of notification as a requirement for compensation between joint tortfeasors.

In order to exercise the right to indemnity against another person's share on the ground that one of the persons who are jointly and severally liable to the injured party has repaid the total amount of the damages and has jointly discharged, it is necessary to notify that he/she has been jointly exempted. If the obligor for repayment has performed in good faith another person's obligation without notifying the obligor for repayment, the obligor for repayment shall not exercise the right to indemnity

Articles 760 and 420 of the Civil Act

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (73Gahap250)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 334,152 and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the next day of service soar to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the witness testimony in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 without dispute over the establishment of the court below's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the deceased non-party 2 was engaged in the construction work for the expansion of the road between Young-gun and Young-gun on Oct. 3, 1969, and was engaged in the work for transporting soil for road construction with the defendant (vehicle number omitted), the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 who owned the defendant and the non-party 9's 475 and 476's 476's 5 meters high-speed electric wires owned by the plaintiff company and the non-party 4's 9's 5-meter high-speed electric wires owned by the non-party 2 and the non-party 4's 9-meter high-speed electric wires and the non-party 4's 9-meter high-speed electric wires' damages damages claim against the non-party 9's 5-meter high-speed electric wires on the ground.

As seen above, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the accident occurred due to the joint tort committed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, etc. on October 9, 1969, when the damages were jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff exercised the right to indemnity against the Defendant’s damages. As such, the Defendant’s legal representative asserted that the Defendant was exempted from the obligation by paying a part of the damages to the said victim. As such, the Defendant’s legal representative did not recognize the fact that the Plaintiff’s legal representative paid 230,00 won to the bereaved family members of the instant accident and paid 230,000 won to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s exemption prior to the Plaintiff’s notification of the exemption of liability to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's act of discharging the first immunity is effective, and the defendant is exempted from his joint and several liability as above, so the same amount was reduced for the benefit of other joint and several obligors. Therefore, the plaintiff, one of the joint and several obligors, can not exercise the right of indemnity.

If so, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the right to indemnity exists shall be dismissed without merit, and the first instance court has different conclusions and thus the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)