The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant makes a supplementary judgment as to the part asserted as the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main sentence of

The summary of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal for further determination: (a) If any remaining damage exists to a victim even after the Plaintiff’s insurance benefits, and the insurance proceeds are not yet paid, the principle of creditor equality in relation to the insurance company; and (b) the insurance company is duly able to reimburse to anyone within the scope of the insurance proceeds; and (c) if the amount of remaining damage of the victim who received the insurance benefits exceeds the insurance limit and the insurance claims are not extinguished due to the repayment of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Na77592 Decided March 11, 2011). According to the above legal principle, the Defendant paid the full amount of liability insurance by paying the victim’s bereaved family members the remaining amount of damages exceeding the maximum amount of liability insurance according to the result of the pertinent lawsuit. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

(2) The insurer’s liability to compensate under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act includes both positive damage, passive damage, and mental damage which has a proximate causal relation with the accident, and the consolation money is not compensated by the insurance benefits provided for in the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. Therefore, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service cannot subrogate the victim’s right to claim consolation money against the insurer based on the insurance benefits

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233626, Sept. 24, 2015). Therefore, the Defendant’s insurance amount that the deceased’s bereaved family members paid to KRW 88 million should be deducted from the amount of the Plaintiff’s reimbursement.

Judgment

① The above argument.