(a) Where the liability of the operator may be mitigated in the participation of the persons who are liable for damage; (b) The method of calculating the part of liability among the joint tortfeasors who are liable for damage to the victims of the participation;

A. Even if an operator of a vehicle permits the boarding of the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passengers without any consideration, and the passenger receives the same for his/her own convenience and interest, if it is deemed unreasonable in light of the purpose of operation, his/her personal relationship with the passengers and the operators, the circumstances leading up to his/her participation in the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature of his/her demand for the boarding of the vehicle, in particular, if it is deemed unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or equity, the amount of compensation may be reduced.

B. In a case where one of the two or more joint tortfeasors has suffered damage, the joint tortfeasor is liable for non-joint and several liability in relation to the victim, but there are certain portions of liability in relation to the inside relation of the joint tortfeasors, and in consideration of the reduction ratio in the amount of damages suffered by the same tortfeasors, the joint tortfeasor shall calculate the amount to be compensated for the same passenger, and then calculate the amount of liability according to the ratio of negligence among the two joint

A. Articles 2(1), 396, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Articles 424 and 760 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da10586 delivered on June 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 2128) 92Da24561 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 254) 93Da13056 delivered on July 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2292) 88Da272 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1559) 92Da20477 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192, 2955)

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 92Na4512 delivered on May 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even in cases where an operator of a vehicle permits the winning of the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passengers without any consideration, and the same passenger receives the provision for his/her own convenience and interest, if it is deemed very unreasonable in light of the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, the background leading up to his/her participation in the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature of the demand for taking the same responsibility as a general traffic accident, the amount of compensation may be reduced. In addition, in relation to the victim, the joint tortfeasor is not jointly and severally liable, but there is a certain portion of liability in relation to the internal relationship of the joint tortfeasor, and the amount of the liability should be calculated according to the ratio of negligence among the joint tortfeasor after calculating the amount of compensation for the same passenger, taking into account the ratio of reduction from the amount of damages suffered by the same passenger, and then the portion of the liability shall be calculated according to the ratio

On the other hand, if the insurer pays the amount of damages to the victim in accordance with the insurance contract concluded with the one of the joint tortfeasor, and the joint tortfeasor is jointly exempted, the insurer who paid the insured amount shall be jointly exempted by the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, thereby acquiring the right to indemnity against the portion of the other joint tortfeasor's liability (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32958 delivered on January 11, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant was liable for damages of the above non-party as joint tortfeasor in relation to the non-party, who was the insurer of the automobile owned by the defendant, while driving the automobile at around 08:00 on September 6, 1990 and suffered injury, such as pressure of the 11 chest pressure, etc., to the plaintiff. The non-party, who was the plaintiff's ○○ households, requested the plaintiff on the date of the accident as the tri○ households operated by the plaintiff. The non-party, who was working at the above ○○ households, was injured by the above 12 chest and the 2nd century pressure pressure, etc., due to the above accident. However, in relation to the plaintiff and the defendant, the non-party, as joint tortfeasor, the insurer of the automobile owned by the defendant, paid the above non-party 31,05,360 won to the above non-party as damages, and therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff's claims against the above non-party company's damages.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)