Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jung-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 19, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,872,475 won with 5% interest per annum from November 20, 2012 to December 10, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 93,191,90 won with 5% interest per annum from November 20, 2012 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 14, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) and entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor with the industrial accident compensation insurance business. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile liability insurance contract with respect to the vehicles owned by Nonparty 1 (vehicle registration number omitted) (hereinafter “instant vehicles”). Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 are workers employed by Nonparty 2 who are employed by ○○ Steel.

B. At around 14:00 on October 19, 2010, Nonparty 3 driven the instant vehicle at the ○○ Steel establishment located in Jinjin-si Co., Ltd., in order to withdraw the local forum from the Adong factory building without a license, Nonparty 3, while driving the instant vehicle at the ○○ Steel establishment located in Jinjin-si Co., Ltd., Ltd., in order to ignore Nonparty 4’s stop signal and put it into the local forum. Nonparty 3 caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Nonparty 4 suffered from injury, such as open-to-door declines, slots, and chronlass fever due to the instant accident, and was hospitalized from October 19, 2010 to October 3, 2012 and received hospital treatment (hereinafter “non-party 4”).

D. The Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, paid the victim of temporary disability compensation benefits in KRW 52,586,380, and medical care benefits in KRW 88,124,880, and decided to pay disability compensation annuities falling under class 5 of disability grade as disability benefits, and paid disability compensation annuities monthly to the victim. The amount is KRW 113,043,436 when converting it into a lump sum disability benefits.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence 3 and 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability for damages

1) According to the above basic facts, the non-party 3 was driving the instant vehicle without a license and had safe transportation of materials by checking the front and rear left, but it was unreasonable to return the instant vehicle despite the suspension signal of the victim, which caused the instant accident. Thus, the non-party 3 is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the victim as the tort.

2) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 3 and the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that non-party Nos. 1 had a coffee franch in the machine room near the instant accident site while sticking the key to the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and Non-party Nos. 1 prepared a "written confirmation of the accident" stating, "non-party No. 3 referred to as "non-party No. 3 was forced to cut back to the next, and Non-party No. 3 was working and the accident of this case occurred," after the instant accident occurred. According to the above facts, non-party No. 1 is not only the owner of the instant vehicle, who is an operator under the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Act who has been in possession of the operating profit, but also the owner of the instant vehicle without a driver's license, who did not leave the key to the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, thereby causing the accident to be caused by the accident. Thus, Non-party No. 1 is liable to compensate for damages suffered from the instant accident.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is an insurer for the instant possession vehicle, and Nonparty 2 is an employer of Nonparty 3, who is an employer of Nonparty 3, and is liable for the damages incurred by Nonparty 3, Nonparty 1, and each victim of the instant accident.

(b) Set-off of negligence;

However, in light of the above evidence and the records, it is reasonable to consider the fault of the victim as 40%, on the ground that the victim was aware that there was a danger of safety accident in the course of transporting the local forum, and thus, the victim was negligent by neglecting his/her duty of care to promote his/her safety, which was determined to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Basic facts;

(a) Gender and date of birth of the victim: Male (date of birth omitted)

2) Date of accident: October 19, 2010

3) End date of operation: April 19, 2033

4) Income

○ From October 19, 2010 to October 3, 2012: 3,130,434 won per month.

○ From October 4, 2012 to April 19, 203: 3,351,105 won per month.

(e) Ratio of loss of labor capacity: 100% of the duration of hospitalization, 48% of the total period of accommodation, and the date of completion of operation;

(b) Actual income: 299,452,974 won (44,145,743 won + 255,307,231 won);

According to the above basic facts, the amount calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident (230 days, 480 days, 29,452,974 won) pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act shall be the amount calculated at the present price (230 days, 480 days, 29,452,974 won, and the calculation details shall be as follows:

(a) Damages during the treatment period: 44,145,743 won (21,55,229 won + 22,590,514 won; hereinafter the same shall apply);

1.20 m1 1 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m1-19 m2 m2 m1-65 3,130,434 100 0.857 6.857 0.00 0.00 0.8555 21,555 2229 2201-6 201-6 201-6 201-33, 2012-10-33, 130, 434.0 231.97 16.22,590,594

2) Damages after the treatment period: 255,307,231 won

m1 m1 m2 m2 m2 m1-2 m2 m2 m2 m2-4 203-4 3,351, 105 48.00% of 270 270 271.6407 2319 247 158.7 208 25,307,231 m208 m25,307,231

(c) Medical expenses: 88,124,880 won;

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Contributory negligence: 40%;

When calculating the amount of damages of the victim who reflects comparative negligence, it shall be as follows:

○ Active Damages: 52,874,928 won (8,124,880 won x 60%)

○ passive damages

- Damages during the treatment period: 26,487,445 won (44,145,743 won x 60%)

- Damages after the treatment period: 153,184,338 won (255,307,231 won x 60%)

4. The occurrence and scope of the right of indemnity;

(a) Occurrence of the right of indemnity;

Where the Plaintiff paid insurance benefits due to a disaster caused by a third party’s harmful act pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the Plaintiff may subrogate the third party’s claim for damages against the recipient of the benefits within the scope of the benefits. The scope of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement that the victim may exercise shall be deemed identical to the amount of the insurance benefits that the victim may receive as compensation from the Defendant and the legal nature of the amount of the insurance benefits that the victim is deemed to have been equal to the amount of the insurance benefits, the entire amount of the insurance benefits, and the “property damages if the amount

(b) Restriction on the right of indemnity;

1) In a case where an industrial accident occurred due to a joint tort committed by a policyholder and a third party, if the plaintiff can claim the total amount of insurance benefits against a third party pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the third party who has been claimed the amount of benefits can re-compensation the part of the reimbursement at the ratio of negligence against the policyholder who is a joint tortfeasor. The insured who has complied with the re-compensation can re-re-compensation the amount of the reimbursement to the plaintiff by analogy of Article 89 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act by analogy of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. If it is against the litigation economy, and it is not reasonable to permit the plaintiff to return it to the insured, and it is not reasonable in light of the good faith principle, the plaintiff should interpret that the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence of the policyholder cannot be claimed against the third party (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da62322, Mar. 21, 200).

2) In light of the above legal principles, in this case, the facts that the victim suffered occupational accidents due to the act of Nonparty 3, who is the same business owner as the victim, employed by Nonparty 2, who is the insured, as the worker. Thus, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 should be excluded from the "third party" under the main sentence of Article 54(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as a person having industrial accident compensation insurance relationship. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident in this case as seen earlier and all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case, it is reasonable to view that the rate of assessment for the negligence of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, who is the insured among the damages to be borne by the defendant, is 80%.

3) As to this, the Defendant asserted that, as Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, the Defendant was negligent in not only leased the instant vehicle from Nonparty 1, but also due to the negligence of failing to take safety measures as a contractor of the construction project who was in progress at the instant accident site, it should be excluded from the “third party” under the main sentence of Article 54(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, like the above Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3. According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to the evidence No. 5, the Defendant leased the instant vehicle from Nonparty 1 (Mayang Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.). The fact that the instant case is a contractor of the construction project being in progress at the instant accident site, even though it is recognized as having been in accordance with the fact of recognition, it does not affect the fact that the instant case constitutes a third party, not an insurance policyholder of the industrial accident compensation insurance, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant case should be deducted from the foregoing case without any further reason is without merit.

C. Scope of the right of indemnity;

If the Plaintiff calculates the amount that the Plaintiff can claim for reimbursement to the Defendant as seen earlier and as seen in the above 4.B.2, it shall be KRW 15,872,475 as follows.

(4) In the case of an insured worker, the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker, or the insured worker.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the indemnity amounting to KRW 15,872,475 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from November 20, 2012 to December 10, 2014, which is the date of the instant judgment, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of its obligation to pay to the Plaintiff from November 20, 2012, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and part of it is accepted, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-woo (Presiding Judge)