1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

2...

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” in the relevant part of the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s asserted association paid 67,573,771 won to E on behalf of the Defendant who is a mutual aid holder.

The plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the defendant as stipulated in the mutual aid agreement by paying mutual aid money, and acquired the damage claim against the defendant E by subrogation.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 54,000,000 won out of the mutual aid amount and the delay damages for it to the plaintiff with co-defendant A of the first instance trial.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the Plaintiff’s claim is deemed to be an exercise of the right to indemnity (Article 22(1) of the Mutual Aid Agreement), the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,565,142 to E in accordance with the mutual aid agreement with the co-defendant A of the first instance trial. The Plaintiff paid KRW 32,008,629 to E in accordance with the mutual aid agreement with the Defendant.

(A) As to KRW 32,008,629 paid under a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated May 6, 2015 shall be deemed to have been made.

The plaintiff shall acquire indemnity money pursuant to the former part of Article 22 (1) of the Terms and Conditions of Mutual Aid for E.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 32,008,629 and damages for delay.

Next, 35,565,142 won paid under a mutual aid agreement with A shall be deemed as follows.

If a person who has become surety for one joint tortfeasor has repaid the obligation of the surety to compensate for damages, the surety may exercise the right to indemnity or the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against another joint tortfeasor who is not the surety.

Therefore, if the part of the liability of the joint tortfeasor guaranteed by the guarantor is all, and there is no part of the liability of the other joint tortfeasor, the guarantor cannot claim the reimbursement or return of unjust enrichment against the other joint tortfeasor.

Supreme Court Decision 200