Requirements for exercising the right to indemnity among joint tortfeasors

Until there is a joint immunity between the joint tortfeasor, even if the judgment of payment of damages against one of the joint tortfeasors became final and conclusive, it cannot be claimed against the other joint tortfeasor in advance.

Articles 760 and 425 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant corporation

Daegu District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap112,264)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 364,387 won to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant), 164,387 won to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant 2, and the amount calculated by the annual rate of 5 percent from February 28, 1972 to the full payment.

The plaintiff et al. (Counterclaim defendant et al.) pays 498,533 won to the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff.

All remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. (Counterclaim defendant et al.) and the remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. (Counterclaim plaintiff) are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by each of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff, etc. (Counterclaim Defendant, etc.) by five minutes in all the first and second instances through the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

(Lawsuit) The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff) an amount equivalent to 2,500,000 won per annum from the following day of delivery to the full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

(Counterclaim): The plaintiff, etc. shall pay 5,252,817 won, respectively, to the defendant. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution is sought.

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff, etc. shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the next day from the service of the copy so that the plaintiff 2,291,072 won and the second half of this case against the plaintiff 2,291,072 won and the second half of this case to the full payment system. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked. The claim against the plaintiff, etc. shall be dismissed and the purport of the counterclaim shall be stated.

First, I examine the claims on the principal lawsuit.

On November 10, 1969: (a) around 20, the truck owner of the above-mentioned 1 truck and the national school located in the vicinity of the city road, and (b) the non-party 1 died immediately in the Dong office due to the collision between the non-party 8 tons of the vehicle's (vehicle number 1 omitted) driving in the opposite direction with the non-party 1 driver's vehicle (vehicle number 2 omitted) and the non-party 1's vehicle's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 2's counter.

However, according to each of the evidence cited above, the non-party 1 did not see the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, but proceed to the speed above 60 kilometers per hour in order to overtake the above vehicle, and it did not take a sudden measure to close the above truck and find it close to the above truck. However, it is recognized that there was a collision with the above truck at the latest time. Thus, the non-party 1's negligence is concurrent in the cause of the accident. The degree of both negligence is that the non-party 1 is the non-party 4 according to the above fact of recognition, and the non-party 2 is reasonable in proportion to the non-party 1's ratio, so the non-party 1's negligence should be considered in calculating the damages of this case.

Furthermore, as to the amount of damages:

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence No. 1 and non-party 3's testimony without dispute as to the formation, the non-party 1, as a healthy male with 30 years old and 10 months old at the time of the accident, worked as the driver of the vehicle of the non-party 4 company, shall be deducted KRW 21,822 per month, and the non-party 1's living expenses shall be acknowledged as 10,000 per month. Since there is no counter-proof, the non-party 1 could have obtained the above living expenses by deducting the above living expenses by 55 years old, the maximum working age of 141,846 won per year, and if the plaintiff claims for the amount of loss of income for 20 years from the date of the accident, the non-party 1 shall be deemed as 21,822 won per month and the non-party 1's living expenses of the non-party 1 shall be deemed as 36,000 won per annum.

In addition, according to the contents of the above Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff 1 and his wife due to the death of the non-party 1 and the plaintiff 2, the non-party 5 and his wife, and the non-party 6, who are their wife, jointly inherited the property, and the share of inheritance of the plaintiff et al. is 6 minutes. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 64,387 won among the above 386,325 won to the plaintiff et al.

Then, it can be easily recognized in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff et al. received the severe mental distress due to the accident in this case. Considering the circumstances of the accident in this case, all other circumstances, and the negligence of the non-party 1, it is reasonable to pay 300,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 100,000 won to the plaintiff 2, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the total sum of KRW 364,387, and the plaintiff 2 the total sum of KRW 164,387 and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code from February 28, 1972 to the full amount of KRW 164,387.

I examine the following counterclaims.

The accident occurred between the non-party 1's negligence and the non-party 2's negligence, the driver belonging to the defendant company. The degree of both negligence is non-party 4, and the non-party 2's proportion is equivalent to the ratio of the non-party 1's negligence, as stated in the principal claim (this ground is groundless). Thus, the defendant can claim against the non-party 1's property heir for the damages of the non-party 1's accident, in case the non-party 1 compensates the victims for the damages caused by the non-party 1's accident, the share of the above negligence's negligence's 13-1, 2, 3, 14-1, 17-1, 10-1, 2, 3, and 17-2's testimony, the non-party 10-party 1, 90-1, 10-1, 19-10, 19-10, 198-1, 197

However, the defendant company's legal representative is not entitled to claim damages from the above non-party 1 corporation to the above non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 6 legal representative's non-party 1's non-party 1's legal representative.

Thus, the plaintiff et al. is obligated to pay the defendant the above 2,91,200 won each amount of 498,533 won according to their shares of inheritance.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s principal claim and the defendant's counterclaim are justified within the scope of each recognition above, and the remainder shall be dismissed, respectively. Since the original judgment is partially different from this conclusion, it shall be altered according to the defendant's appeal, and since the appeal by the plaintiff et al. is without merit, it shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 92, and Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Seole Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)