2015Da236905 (principal lawsuit) Damages

2015Da236912 (Counterclaim) Construction Costs

United States Armed Forces

person

E. S-S. Limited Liability Company

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju), 2014Na913 (Mainju), 2014 (Principalju), 2014

920 (Counterclaim) Judgment

March 10, 2016

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 ① 이 사건 붕괴사고가 피고와 주식회사 넥슨(이하 '픽슨'이라 하고, 피고와 픽슨을 합쳐 '피고 측'이라 한다)의 과실이 경합하여 발생하였고, 원고도 이 사건 붕괴사고로 인한 손해의 발생 및 확대에 기여한 잘못이 있다는 이유로, 원고와 피고 측의 책임비율이 40 : 60이라고 인정한 다음, ② 이 사건 붕괴사고가 피고 측의 일방적인 과실로 발생하였음을 전제로 원고가 이 사건 복구공사로 인하여 지출한 비용 상당의 손해배상을 구하는 본소 청구에 대하여, 피고는 원고가 이 사건 복구공사로 인하여 지출한 236,696,000원 중 피고 측의 책임비율인 60% 상당 손해배상금 142,017,600원을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하는 한편, ③ 이 사건 붕괴사고가 원고의 일방적인 과실로 발생하였음을 전제로 추가 공사대금을 청구하는 피고의 반소청구에 대하여, 이 사건 복구공사에 필요한 총 공사비용은 781,464,000원이고, 그 중 피고와 픽슨이 책임비율에 따라 부담하여야 할 공사비용은 468,878,400원(781,464,000 원×60%)이며, 피고와 픽슨 사이의 내부적인 과실비율에 따라 피고가 부담하여야 할 액수는 234,439,200원(468,878,400원×50%)이 되므로, 원고는 피고에게 피고가 자신의 책임비율을 초과하여 부담한 140,508,000원(374,948,000원 - 234,439,200원)을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하여, 본소 청구와 반소 청구를 각각 일부씩 인용하였다.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after the collapse of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant provisionally calculated 826,50,000 won for the restoration work of this case, and the plaintiff paid 227,232,00 won for the plaintiff, 224,320,000 won for the traffic, and 374,948,000 won for the defendant to carry out the restoration work of this case, but are liable for the expenses for the restoration work of this case in accordance with the responsibility. The plaintiff completed the completion inspection for the restoration work of this case executed by the defendant in accordance with the agreement of this case.

Considering such circumstances, the Plaintiff or the Defendant is only entitled to claim a reimbursement equivalent to the amount borne by the other party only in cases where he/she bears the expenses for restoration work in excess of his/her own share, and where it does not reach such amount, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff or the Defendant cannot claim damages from the other party or claim a reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him/her. If the party who bears the expenses for restoration work less than his/her own share allows the other party to claim the amount equivalent to his/her ratio of liability to the expenses incurred by him/her, the party who bears more than his/her share can re-re-re-compensation against the said party, and thus, it is against the economy of the lawsuit, and it may not be allowed in light of the good faith, as a circular lawsuit, to claim a reimbursement for

Therefore, the court below did not determine the share amount according to the respective ratio of responsibility on the basis of the expenses for restoration works paid by the plaintiff, but did not determine the share amount according to the respective ratio of responsibility. After examining whether the expenses for restoration works incurred by the plaintiff exceed the share of the plaintiff's liability, the court below should have determined the legitimacy of the principal claim and counterclaim claims. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the intent of the agreement of this case or the scope of exercise of the right to indemnity, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the Defendant and the Pacificson paid KRW 23,00,000 to B as compensation for losses at the Plaintiff’s request for the restoration of the instant case, and the lower court recognized this as not losses due to the collapse of the instant case but losses to be borne by the Plaintiff, and thus, pointed out that these expenses should also be considered and settled together.

3. Conclusion

The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim In-young