In case where an industrial accident occurs in competition with a third party and an insured, whether the exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is the case (affirmative)

A. The third party, who is the other party to the exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship with the victimized employee and is liable to compensate for the damage caused by a tort against the victimized employee. However, it applies not only to the case where the accident occurred due to a third party's illegal act, but also to the case where a third party's illegal act and a tort committed by

B. The State's right to indemnity under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is subrogated to a claim for damages against a third party by the person who received the insurance benefits. Therefore, the scope of the right to indemnity is identical to the scope of the claim for damages against the third party who received the benefits, within the limit of the amount of insurance benefits, and even if the victim suffers a disaster due to joint tort with the third party, the victim may exercise the right to indemnity within the limit of the amount of insurance benefits regardless of the amount of

Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2285 delivered on March 8, 1988

Korea

Samsung Transportation Co., Ltd. and one other Defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Na580 delivered on November 19, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The third party who is the other party to the exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship with the victimized employee and is liable for damages caused by any tort against the victimized employee. However, the above right to indemnity applies not only to cases where the accident occurred due to only a third party's illegal act, but also to cases where a third party's illegal act and a tort committed by the insured or his/her employees are concurrently committed (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu285, Mar. 8, 198). The court below's decision that recognized the plaintiff's right to indemnity in this case is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as

2. The State's right to indemnity under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act subrogated the right to indemnity against a third party by the person receiving the insurance benefits to the third party. The scope of the right to indemnity is the same as the scope of the right to indemnity against the third party who committed a tort within the limit of the amount of insurance benefits. Even in the case where the injured party suffered a disaster due to joint tort between the third party and the insured or his employee, the right to indemnity may be exercised regardless of the amount to be borne by the insured or his employee's fault (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu285, Mar. 8, 1988; 87Meu1946, Jun. 27, 1989). Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the right to indemnity, regardless of the plaintiff's fault ratio of the operator of the defendant company and the non-party 1, the operator of Gwangju High-speed company, the insured.

3. 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)