Cases Non-Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jin-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

November 9, 2016

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Da303124 decided July 21, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 73,62,074 won with 20% interest per annum from July 4, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this part is as stated in Paragraph (1) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding "this case" in Section 3, Section 14 of the first instance judgment to "the first instance court of this case", and "the judgment of the first instance court of this case" in Section 4, Section 9 of the fourth and subsequent to "the final judgment" (hereinafter "the judgment of the first instance court of this case") to "the judgment of this case"). Thus, it is cited as it is by

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of the right of indemnity;

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

According to Article 87(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the Defendant exempted an employee from the obligation to pay insurance benefits to the extent that “the beneficiary has received damages equivalent to the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act for the same reason from a third party, and fails to pay the insurance benefits under this Act within the extent of the amount converted by a method prescribed by Presidential Decree.” In light of the purport of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the part corresponding to the insurance benefits for damages caused by an occupational accident of the employee is ultimately liable for compensation between the Defendant and the employer. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the employer, who has already paid civil damages to the employee in advance, can claim the money paid to the employee within the extent of the insurance benefits the Defendant would be exempted from paying

With respect to this case, the non-party company is an owner of the business subject to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and is an industrial accident insurance policyholder and the non-party company's employer. The plaintiff is the non-party company's insurer. The plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to 73,622,074 won for damages to the non-party company as the insurer of the non-party company pursuant to the judgment of this case which became final and conclusive in the lawsuit for damages claim (related civil lawsuit) filed against the non-party company. Accordingly, the defendant is exempted from the duty to pay disability benefits to the non-party pursuant to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right to indemnity within the scope of disability benefits for which the defendant is exempted from the payment of the non-party ( long as the plaintiff's claim for indemnity is acknowledged, Article 682 of the Commercial Act, Article 481 of the Civil Act, Article 89 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and the defendant's defense, etc. (the non-party's claim for subrogation under Article 89 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and the non-party's right to receive disability Benefits).

2) Determination on the defense, etc.

A) Determination as to whether to exercise the right to indemnity against the portion exceeding the scope of guarantee of the Plaintiff

The defendant asserts that the insurance contract of this case provides that "the plaintiff shall compensate only when the amount of compensation under the terms and conditions exceeds the amount of mandatory insurance covered by the mandatory insurance (Article 12 (1) of the Terms and Conditions)." Thus, the plaintiff should have paid only the insurance proceeds excluding the amount of mandatory insurance out of the amount recognized in the judgment of this case. The non-party is not obligated to pay the insurance proceeds for the amount of disability benefits that the non-party could have been paid from the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot exercise its right to

As seen earlier, the non-party was unable to receive disability benefits from the defendant until the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and in the related civil litigation, whether the non-party can receive disability benefits from the defendant, and if possible, it could not be confirmed whether the non-party can receive disability benefits (i.e., there was no disability benefits paid by the defendant until the plaintiff paid insurance money to the non-party). Thus, the plaintiff, who is the insurer of the non-party company, was bound to pay the non-party the full amount of compensation pursuant to the judgment of this case, which became final and conclusive, and even if the plaintiff paid insurance money including the amount equivalent to disability benefits that the non-party could have received from the defendant, it is not impossible to exercise the right

B) Determination on the statute of limitations defense

Examining the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription as a defense against the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity, it is deemed that the Plaintiff, an insurance company, paid insurance money to the Nonparty and exercises the right to indemnity against the Defendant for business purposes. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity is extinguished if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise the right as a claim for a supplementary commercial activity. As seen earlier, as the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the Nonparty on July 3, 2014, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity is five years from the time of the payment of the above insurance money. Therefore, it is clear that the period of extinctive prescription has not elapsed since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for reimbursement against the Defendant by June 11, 2015, which is apparent that the said period of extinctive prescription has not expired by the record

B. Scope of indemnity

The scope of the insurance benefits that the Defendant was exempted from the obligation to pay to the Nonparty due to the Plaintiff’s payment of insurance proceeds is limited to the scope of disability benefits that the Nonparty could have received from the Defendant (the Nonparty was paid temporary disability compensation benefits and medical care benefits by the Defendant, and only claimed damages corresponding to the lost income and consolation money in the relevant civil litigation).

However, in full view of the facts that the Nonparty’s pressure rate of spine due to the instant accident is 17%, there is no dispute between the parties, and the Nonparty’s average wage was 146,000 won per day at the time when the Nonparty was able to receive disability benefits in accordance with the written evidence No. 3 and the purport of the argument, it is reasonable to deem that the Nonparty was 13’s disability grade pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, Article 53(1) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 13(1) [Attachment 6] of the same Act, Article 48 [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 47(2) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the Nonparty was 14,454,000 won from the Defendant pursuant to Article 57(2) [Attachment 2] of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (average wage 146,000 won x 99 days).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 14,454,00 won for indemnity and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from July 4, 2014 to July 21, 2016, which is the day following the day on which the defendant is exempted from the obligation to pay disability benefits by paying insurance proceeds to the non-party, and the defendant's obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment [the plaintiff shall be recognized as being 14,454,00 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 4, 2014 and the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the former Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 2653, Sep. 25, 2015).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hyun-hwan (Presiding Justice)