[1] In the event that one of the joint tortfeasor has repaid the entire obligation, the nature of the remainder of the joint tortfeasor's liability for reimbursement (=liability for division)

[2] In a case where the insurer pays damages according to the insurance contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasor and the joint tortfeasor is jointly exempted, the scope of the insurer's exercise of the right to indemnity against the other joint tortfeasor

[1] Articles 408, 425, and 760 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 408, 425, and 760 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da15917 decided Sep. 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2561) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da40466 decided Dec. 22, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 195)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daejeon High Court Decision 2007Na6879 Decided November 23, 2007

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the future Heungsan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). Nonparty 1, the representative director of the said company, driving the instant vehicle at around 12:00 on July 12, 2005, entered the chemical oil station operated by Co-Defendant 2 of the court below and entered the chemical oil station operated by Co-Defendant 2 of the court below. According to Defendant 2 of the court below’s Co-Defendant 2’s inducement, the fourth class of the four class of the vehicle at the seat of 5.5m A, which was set up between the four class of the four class of the vehicle and 2-3 class of the vehicle at the seat of 5.5m A type of the vehicle at the seat of the victim Co-Defendant 2 of the judgment below that the victim Co-Defendant 2 violated the rules of evidence, and did not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the safety signs or work guidance signs at the entrance or work site of the said chemical oil station. Thus, the court below did not err in the judgment below's of the judgment below.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In relation to the joint tortfeasor, the joint tortfeasor is not liable for non-joint and several liability in relation to the creditor, but a certain portion of liability is determined according to the degree of negligence of the joint tortfeasor. When one of the joint tortfeasor has paid one or more of the joint tortfeasor's apportionments, he/she may exercise the right to indemnity against the other joint tortfeasor according to the ratio of his/her apportionments. In cases where the other joint tortfeasor who bears the liability for indemnity against one of the joint tortfeasor is multiple joint tortfeasors, unless there are special circumstances, such as the alternative liability relationship such as the employer and his/her employee, or the relationship with the other joint tortfeasor, he/she has to jointly respond to the indemnity. Rather, his/her obligation to the other joint tortfeasor is not reasonable to view it as a joint and several liability, and it is reasonable to regard it as a divided liability under the part of each joint tortfeasor's apportionments (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da15917, Sep. 27, 2002).

B. In addition to the above facts, the court below acknowledged that the damage suffered by the victim due to the accident in this case was KRW 95,816,570, and that the plaintiff paid the above amount of damage to the victim as the insurer of the vehicle in this case, and determined that the above ratio of the non-party 1's negligence to the accident in this case is 50%, and that the ratio of the non-party 1's negligence to the defendant and the co-defendant 2 in the court below is 50%, and therefore, the plaintiff exempted the defendant and the co-defendant 2 in the court below by compensating the above non-party 1's share to exceed 50%, and thus, the defendant and the co-defendant 2 in the court below and the co-defendant 2 in the court below are liable to pay 47,908,285 won

C. However, according to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the non-party 1 and the defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the court below, and there is no alternative or similar relationship among them. Thus, as to the accident in this case, the plaintiff who is the non-party 1's insurer compensates for the whole damages of the victim as the insurer of the non-party 1, can be individually claimed against the defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the court below only for their respective share of negligence.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the court below are liable for the non-joint and several liability even for the plaintiff's claim for the amount of compensation, without examining and determining as much as the part of the defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the court below's fault ratio, and that the defendant has a duty to respond to the claim for compensation in excess of the above non-party 1's share. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the claim for compensation of the joint tortfeasor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)