2019Da219397 Claims

A Stock Company

Attorney Lee Jae-soo (Attorney Lee Jae-soo in charge)

1. A stock company B;

2. The C Federation;

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Na62401 Decided January 29, 2019

July 10, 2019

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. When one of the joint obligors jointly and severally liable or at his own expense becomes jointly and severally liable, the right to indemnity may be exercised against the other joint and severally liable portion (Article 425(1) of the Civil Act). The provisions concerning joint and severally liable obligation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the joint and severally liable portion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da20244, Oct. 22, 191; 90Da20244, Oct. 22, 199). If one of the joint and several obligors has paid one or more of the joint and several obligors to obtain joint immunity, the right to indemnity may be exercised against the other joint and several obligors according to the ratio of the share of liability. The share of liability is determined according to the degree of the fault of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da14112 delivered on May 24, 2002, etc.)

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff can exercise the right to indemnity only within the scope of KRW 10,395,90, which is the amount obtained by deducting disability benefits from the portion exceeding 30% of D’s fault ratio (=16,29,380 won X X 70% - 10,395,90 won), while the Plaintiff could exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendants, in relation to lost income of KRW 16,299,380 after the period of temporary layoff benefits, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service paid disability benefits to the victims.

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

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The instant accident occurred by the negligence of D and F, who neglected the duty to protect the safety of the victim, and operated the instant truck and the instant truck. The Defendant Company, the operator of the instant truck, was the Defendant Company, the starting point of which was d and F, and the truck of this case (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant Company, etc.”) is jointly liable for the damages suffered by the victim due to the instant accident.

2) D was covered by industrial accident insurance, but Korea Labor Welfare Corporation paid 10,395,900 won to the victim as disability benefits.

3) After that, the Plaintiff entered into the instant insurance contract with D with the content that compensates for damages sustained by bearing legal liability for damages exceeding the amount of accident compensation paid in accordance with the industrial accident insurance. The amount calculated by deducting the amount of disability benefits of KRW 10,395,90 from the total sum of KRW 16,29,380 and KRW 3,948,000 after the payment period of the victim’s temporary disability compensation benefits, 20,247,380, and KRW 10,395,90,000 from the total sum of KRW 10,851,480, and paid insurance money to the victim KRW 9,850,00,000 to the victim

4) As to the instant accident, ① the ratio of negligence of D is 30%, and the ratio of negligence of the Defendant Company, etc. is 70%.

5) The Defendant Federation concluded a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant Company with respect to the instant truck and scrap.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the content of the instant insurance contract is compensated for damages exceeding the amount of accident compensation for industrial accident insurance. The remainder after deducting the disability insurance benefits paid by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service from the daily income after the payment period of temporary disability compensation benefits for the victim constitutes damages exceeding the amount of accident compensation for industrial accident insurance. Of that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff paid more than the amount of accident compensation for the victim’s temporary disability compensation benefits, thereby allowing the Defendant Company, etc. to obtain joint exemption, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendants regarding the portion corresponding to the fault ratio of the Defendant Company, etc., out of the amount recovered in relation to the damages exceeding

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and the lower court’s aforementioned determination

The judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the opinion expressed in the above decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the judgment contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) of the Trial

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of 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 Kim Jae-soo

Justices Kim Jong-il

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Il-san