2006 Single 5955 Claims

○ Stock Company

Seoul whose jurisdiction:

송달장소원주시ㅇㅇ동0

Representative Director;

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. 000 construction works;

ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동

송달장소ㅇㅇ시ㅇㅇㅇㅇ강원지역본부

Representative, President,000

Attorney Or-he et al., Counsel for the defendant

2. 000 stock companies;

ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇ

this representative director

소송대리인 ㅇㅇㅇ

May 30, 2007

July 18, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay 18,407,076 won each and each of them at the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2006 to the pronouncement of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 ㅇㅇ 1403 마이티 2.5톤 차량(다음부터 '이 사건 차량'이라 한다)의 소유자와 사이에 위 차량의 운행 중 제3자에게 부담하는 손해배상책임을 전보하기로 하는 내용의 자동차종합보험계약을 체결한 보험회사이고, 피고 0000공사는 고속국도법 제6조에 의하여 공공의 영조물인 영동고속도로를 유지·관리하는 주체이다.

B. On April 14, 2005, Defendanto Corporation awarded a contract for the packing maintenance and repair works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) within the Gangwon-gu Branch of the Gangwon-do Highway from April 18, 2004 to October 14, 2005 for the contract period from April 18, 2004 to October 14, 2005. At the time of November 16, 2005, the construction site of this case was divided into the second construction site close to the direction of the Gangseo-dong Highway and the first construction site close to the direction of the main construction site, and the first-lane of the second-lane road was controlled by the road packing works without entering the general vehicle as rubber.

라. 이 사건 차량의 운전자인 ㅇㅇㅇ는 피고 ooㅇㅇ주식회사로부터 포장업무를 하수급받아 공사하던 oooㅇ 주식회사 소속의 근로자였는데, 그는 2005.11.3. 16:00경 공사장의 다른 인부로부터 1차 현장까지 태워달라는 부탁을 받고 이 사건 차량을 운전하여 2차 공사현장에서 1차 공사현장으로 약 400미터에서 500미터를 후진하던 중 당시 이 사건 차량의 후방에는 ㅇㅇㅇ(피고 자원건설주식회사로부터 수신호담당업무를 하수급받은 대원용역 소속의 근로자이다, 다음부터 '피해자'라 한다)이 깃발을 들고 원주방향에서 강릉방향으로 진행하는 차량들에게 공사중인 사실과 2차로로 서행하라는 신호를 하고 있었으므로 운전업무에 종사하는 자로서는 전후좌우를 잘 살펴 사고 발생을 미연에 방지할 업무상 주의의무가 있음에도 이를 게을리한 채 그대로 후진한 과실로 이 사건 차량 뒤 범퍼 부분으로 위 피해자를 들이받은 후 넘어진 피해자를 역과하여 그 충격으로 피해자로 하여금 저혈량에 의한 심정지 등으로 사망에 이르게 하였다.

From the next day, the accident of this case is referred to as the "accident of this case".

E. On November 4, 2005, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,00 as funeral expenses, and around December 29, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to give up all claims for damages by paying KRW 125,713,840 as compensation for the remainder of damages, as the funeral expenses, to the heir of the victim.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5 through 8, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Claims to the Defendant Corporation

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

피고 ooㅇㅇ공사(다음부터 '피고공사'라 한다)는 영동고속도로를 관리하는 지위에 있고 이 사건 공사에 대한 총괄적인 관리 책임을 지고 있는바, 사고 당시 차량들이 후진을 하여 1차 공사현장과 2차 공사현장을 오가는 일이 많았으므로, 피고 공사로서는 자신이 도급을 주었던 피고 0000주식회사(다음부터 '피고회사'라 한다) 및 하수급 회사에게 공사구간 내에서 직접적·간접적인 안전교육을 하는 동시에 사후감독을 하였어야 함에도 그러한 교육 및 감독의무(그러한 의무가 이 사건 공사에 있어서 피고 공사에게 요구되는 방호조치의무 및 관리 책임의 내용이다)를 게을리한 과실과 000의 운전상의 잘못이 경합하여 이 사건 사고를 발생시켰으므로 피고공사는 이 사건 사고의 공동불법행위자로서 원고와 함께 이 사건 사고로 발생한 모든 손해를 배상할 책임이 있고, 이 사건 경위 등에 비추어 피고공사의 책임은 원고들이 피해자의 상속인에게 지급한 금액의 15%라고 할 것이므로 피고 공사는 원고에게 원고가 피해자의 상속인에게 지급한 금액의 15%를 지급할 의무가 있다.

2) Defendant Corporation’s assertion

Since the instant accident is not an accident due to an industrial accident or an obstacle on the road, it cannot be deemed that the owner of the instant construction and the road manager are responsible for the Defendant Corporation. Moreover, the instant accident cannot be said to have a duty to place a guide for the future progress of the Defendant Corporation as much as it occurred within the construction site. As the Defendant Corporation has taken all necessary measures to prevent an accident, the Defendant Corporation cannot be deemed to have any negligence in the occurrence of the instant accident.

B. Determination

(3) In light of the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, the construction work for the installation and management of the public structures at the site of the instant case shall be deemed to have failed to have safety requirements ordinarily for the construction and management of the public structures. The construction work for the installation and management of the public structures at the site of the instant case shall not be readily concluded that there are defects in the construction or management of the public structures at all times, and the construction work for the installation and management of the public structures at the site of the instant road shall be deemed to have been carried out by the construction work for the installation and management of the public structures at the site of the instant road. The construction work for the installation and management of traffic signs at the site of the instant road shall also be deemed to have been carried out by the construction work for the installation and management of the traffic safety signs at the site of the instant road and the construction work for the installation and management of the traffic safety signs at the site of the road at the time of the instant construction work site. The construction work for the installation and management of the traffic safety signs at the site of the public structures shall also be deemed to have relative safety requirements.

3. Claim against the defendant company

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant Company, as a joint tortfeasor of the instant accident, has a duty to prevent safety accidents that may arise to workers by taking safety measures, such as keeping separate figures who control the movement of vehicles in the work section, such as the moving vehicles, etc., but the Defendant Company breached such safety care duty, thereby failing to thoroughly conduct safety education to the Deceased for the prevention of safety accidents caused by mobile vehicles in the controlled area, imposing heavy duties on the Deceased, and this became the cause of the instant accident. Thus, the Defendant Company is liable for all damages arising from the instant accident together with the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor of the instant accident. In light of the circumstances of the instant case, the Defendant Company is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for 15% of the amount paid by the Plaintiffs to the heir of the victim. Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay 15% of the amount paid by the Plaintiff

2) The defendant company's assertion

이 사건 사고는 ㅇㅇㅇ와 피해자의 과실로 인하여 발생한 것일 뿐 이 사건 사고의 발생과 피고회사는 아무런 관련이 없다. 가사 피고회사가 이 사건 사고에 대한 공동불법행위자라고 하더라도 피고회사는 피해자의 상속인에게 91,000,000원을 지급하고 원만히 합의하였으므로 피고회사가 위 금액을 지급함으로써 취득한 원고에 대한 구상금 채권으로 원고의 구상금 채권과 상계하면 피고회사가 원고에게 지급할 금액은 없다.

(b) Occurrence of the right of indemnity;

위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 사고는 후방주시 및 안전운전의무를 게을리하여 후방을 잘 살피지 아니한 채 후진한 ㅇㅇㅇ의 과실이 주된 원인이 되어 발생하였다고 할 것이나, 피고회사는 이 사건 공사의 수급인으로서 이 사건 공사현장에서 발생하는 모든 교통사고 및 안전사고에 대한 책임을 피고 공사로부터 계약상 위임받는 점, 피고회사는 이 사건 차량의 운전자인 ㅇㅇㅇ가 일하고 있던 ㅇㅇㅇ 주식회사 및 피해자가 소속되어 있던 00 용역의 하도급인으로서 그들의 업무를 지휘·감독할 책임이 있는 점, 당시 이 사건 공사가 1차로상에서 진행되었고 1차 공사현장과 2차 공사현장 사이를 왕래할 필요가 있었던 만큼 피고회사로서는 이러한 경우를 예상하여 사고방지를 위해 후진 자체를 통제하거나 후진을 허용하더라도 후진유도원을 배치하거나 후진시 주변의 근로자에게 이를 고지하는 등으로 이 사건 차량의 후진을 안전하게 유도하여야 할 의무가 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 사고는 위의 과실과 피고 회사의 과실이 경합하여 발생한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.다. 구상권의 범위

1) The apportionment ratio of liability for damages

위에서 인정한 바와 같은 과실내용 및 이 사건 사고의 경위 및 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 사정을 참작하면, ㅇㅇㅇ와 피고회사 사이의 손해배상책임 분담비율은 5: 1로 보는 것이 상당하다 할 것이고(ㅇㅇㅇ가 이 사건 차량을 후진한 것은 작업차량을 사용하기 위해서가 아니라 단순히 다른 공사장 인부의 부탁을 받고 그를 개인적으로 1차 작업현장으로 태워주기 위해서였던 것은 앞에서 본 바와 같다), ㅇㅇㅇ와 피고회사는 이 사건 사고의 피해자가 입은 손해를 각자 배상할 부진정연대책임이 있다 할 것이나, 한편 그들의 내부관계에서는 각 사고 발생에 기여한 과실의 정도에 따라 손해배상책임을 분담하여야 하는 것이므로 ㅇㅇㅇ가 운전한 이 사건 차량의 보험자로서 이 사건 사고의 피해자의 상속인에게 손해배상금을 지급하여 공동불법행위자들을 면책시킨 원고는 피고회사에 대하여 그 책임분담비율에 따라 구상할 수 있는 권리를 취득하였다 할 것이다.

2) Damages of the victim

Where the insurer pays the amount of damages to the victim as the amount of the insurance contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasors, and the insurer who has paid the amount of damages to the joint tortfeasors becomes jointly exempted, the scope of the right to indemnity acquired by the insurer against the other joint tortfeasors, other than the joint tortfeasors, pursuant to the subrogation system, shall be limited to the part equivalent to the ratio of the other joint tortfeasors' fault among the damages suffered by the victim due to the tort, and even if the insurer paid the amount of damages exceeding the amount of damages of the victim, the insurer may not claim for the excess portion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da14112, May 24, 2002; 2002Da13584, Jun. 25, 2004). Therefore, the amount of damages of the victim shall be deemed as the

(1) Personal information

Gender: Date of birth of male: - dated 1961 -

Age: 44 years of age at the time of an accident: 33.05 years of age;

(2) Occupation: Urban daily workers.

(3) Revenue: The urban average wage (22 days of monthly operation) of the urban average worker.

(4) Maximum working age: Until he/she reaches age 60.

(5) Mutual aid for living expenses: 1/3 of income.

From November 3, 2005 to April 30, 2006: 55,252 won x 22 days x 4.9384 x 4,001,894 won x 4.9384 x 2/3 : 56,82 won x 22 days x 3.8789 x 22 days x 3.3 x 2/3 2.3 x 63 won from September 1, 2006 to September 8, 2021: 57,820 x 22 days x 93 x 22 days x 91 x 11,021 x 2/3 x 115,718 won in total:

(6) Funeral expenses: 3,000,000 won

7) Restrictions on the liability of KRW 2,692,470: The victim was negligent in making water signals at the first speed, even though he/she had sustained water signals from behind the towing vehicle, which caused the occurrence of the instant accident. Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages, it shall be considered in light of the circumstances in which the said accident occurred, but it is reasonable to view that such ratio is 15%.

Calculation: 118,255,718 Won x 85% = 100,517,360 Won 2,692,470 = 85% = Funeral expenses 3,00,000 won x 85% = 2,288,599 x 85%

(9) Consolation money: Considering the victim's age, career, background of the accident of this case, degree of negligence of the victim, etc., it is reasonable to determine the above materials as KRW 45,00,000 for mental suffering caused by the accident of this case.

The total amount of damages suffered by a victim: positive damages 100,517,360 + passive damages 4,848,599 (the first king treatment expenses 2,288,599 + funeral expenses 2,50,000 + 45,000,000 + KRW 150,365,959 [Grounds for recognition: Each entry of evidence No. 11-1 to 38, A, 12, and 13; the purport of the whole oral argument];

3) 원고와 피고 회사의 손해배상금 지급 등 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제13호증, 을나 제1호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 보면, 원고는 2005. 11. 4. 피해자의 처인 ㅇㅇㅇ에게 장례비 명목으로 3,000,000원을 지급하였고, 피고회사는 2005. 11. 16. 위 ㅇㅇㅇ에게 장례비 및 위자료 명목의 손해배상금으로 합계 91,000,000원(합의서에는 보상합의금 75,000,000원, 공원묘지 5,000,000원, 장례비 11,000,000원으로 그 항목이 나누어져 있다)을 지급하면서 피고회사는 ooo에게 위 돈을 지급하며, ㅇㅇㅇ은 피고회사와 가해차량운전자를 상대로 일체의 민·형사상의 소송을 제기하지 아니하며, 위 사고에 관한 어떠한 손해배상청구도 하지 아니한다, ㅇㅇㅇ의 보험처리 방법은 자동차보험으로 처리하는데 서로 합의한다'는 취지의 손해배상합의를 한 사실, 원고는 2005. 12. 29. 위 ㅇㅇㅇ에게 122,713,840원을 피해자의 법률상 일체의 손해배상금 명목으로 지급하고, ooo으로부터 향후 일체의 이의를 제기하지 않는다는 취지의 권리포기서를 교부받은 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

4) Determination

Article 426 of the Civil Act recognizes the obligation of notification among debtors with respect to repayment of joint and several liability. The purport of joint and several liability lies in the relationship between debtors for the joint and several liability and the relationship between debtors for the joint purpose and the sharing of contributions, which is the basis of such subjective relationship. Thus, even in the recourse relationship, it is intended to recognize the mutual and subjective relationship with each other, and protect persons without negligence by recognizing the duty of mutual notification with respect to payment. As such, in the case of joint and several liability with the purpose of satisfaction of the contribution, it cannot be acknowledged that the relationship between the debtors is not established with respect to payment of damages, and in the case of joint and several liability with repayment, it is nothing more than the relationship between the debtors with respect to payment of damages or the point of view of equity among the debtors, and thus, in the case of joint and several liability for damages which falls under the joint and several liability for damages, the victim’s payment of damages from among the joint and several liability for damages cannot be seen as being null and void under the above provision of the Civil Act as one of the joint and several liability for damages.

Ultimately, insofar as the scope of the plaintiff's obligation to notify the other joint tortfeasor is not applicable, but can be claimed against the other joint tortfeasor within the limit of the amount of damages of the victim, the part that the plaintiff and the defendant company jointly exempted the other joint tortfeasor out of the amount paid to the victim in this case ① 2,550,000 won, excluding the part of the victim's fault, paid on November 4, 2005, ② 91,000,000 won paid by the defendant on November 16, 2005, 45,000 won, which is recognized by the court of this case (as seen above, the defendant company paid KRW 91,00,000,000 to the other joint tortfeasor, but was limited to the portion that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company was extinguished by 50,000 won, and the remaining damages, other than funeral expenses and agreed upon the claim for compensation of KRW 50,509,900,000,000 already paid to the defendant company's damages.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Civil Binding machine