In case where an industrial accident has occurred due to a joint tort of a policyholder and a third person, the scope of the right to claim the insurance benefits in subrogation of the policyholder who has paid it to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

In the event of an industrial accident caused by a joint tort by a policyholder and a third party, if the third party pays the damages first, and if the policyholder pays it to the policyholder by exercising the right to indemnity, it can be seen as the same as in the case of compensation for the beneficiary with the money of the policyholder before the payment of the insurance benefits. Thus, the above policyholder may subrogate the right to receive the insurance benefits of the beneficiary within the scope of the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits recognized as identical to

Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act Article 55-2

Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da62322 Decided March 21, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1317) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4429 Decided September 4, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2324) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1324 Decided September 4, 2002

Three UN Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Woo, Attorney Ysung-si, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu684 delivered on September 19, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 55-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “Where an insured has paid in advance money or goods equivalent to insurance benefits under the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes for an occupational accident of his employee to the beneficiary for the same reason as the cause for payment of insurance benefits under this Act, and where it is recognized that such money or goods have been paid as a substitute for the insurance benefits, the insured shall subrogate the beneficiary’s right to receive the insurance benefits under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Thus, even if an insured has already been paid in advance to the beneficiary with a civil liability for damages in advance, the insured may subrogate the beneficiary’s right to receive the insurance benefits to the extent of the amount equivalent to the amount of the insurance benefits so long as it is recognized that the money or goods have been paid as a substitute for the insurance benefits. The insurance benefits under the Act does not have the nature of liability insurance for the civil liability for damages under the Labor Standards Act which the employer would bear due to an occupational accident, it performs its function with the nature of liability insurance, and in terms of loss transfer, it is reasonable to assume the function of compensat

If an industrial accident occurred due to a joint tort committed by a policyholder and a third party, if the third party pays damages first, and if the policyholder pays it to the policyholder by exercising the right to indemnity against the policyholder, it can be seen that the same applies to the case where the policyholder paid damages to the beneficiary with the money of the policyholder before the payment of insurance benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da13324, Sept. 4, 2002). Thus, the policyholder who has complied with the third party’s indemnity can be deemed as subrogated to the beneficiary’s right to receive insurance benefits within the scope of industrial accident compensation insurance benefits recognized as identical to the amount paid to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and clarified whether there are overlapping parts of insurance benefits and civil liability for damages under the Act (e.g., compensation for lost profits among civil compensation for the same reason as bereaved family benefits under the Act, which can be deemed to have been paid as a substitute for insurance benefits), and if so, whether the substitute amount of insurance benefits falls under the requirements for subrogation of the right to receive insurance benefits under Article 5-2 of the Act, such as the amount of the insurance benefits paid to a third party. However, it should be determined that the amount paid by the plaintiff to a third party is merely the amount paid by the plaintiff according to its own civil liability, and it cannot be deemed that it is paid as a substitute for the insurance benefits under the Act to the non-party who is the beneficiary. Thus, by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 5-2 of the Act,

Therefore, 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)