[1] Whether a quasi-joint and several liability joint and several liability joint and several liability exists

[2] The validity of exemption from liability to one of the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable (=the relative effect)

[1] In a case where multiple vicarious joint and several liability parties jointly and severally liable are jointly and severally liable, a certain amount of liability may be borne according to the principle of equity, and where one of the vicarious and several liability parties jointly and severally liable jointly and severally liable jointly and severally liable jointly and severally liable jointly and severally liable jointly and severally liable is determined according to the degree of each party’s intent and negligence, he/she may exercise the right to reimbursement according to the ratio of

[2] The grounds such as repayment, which achieves the objective of a claim between the quasi-joint and several obligors, include absolute effect on all the obligors, but other reasons arise in relation to relative effect. Thus, even if the victim renounced his/her right to compensation for damages or declared his/her intention to waive his/her obligation to compensate for damages against one of the obligors, it cannot be deemed that the other debtors are effective. This legal principle does not change because, in the internal relationship between the obligors, one of the obligors is exempted from part of his/her obligation to compensate for damages under an agreement, he/she again assumes the liability to compensate for damages against the other debtors who have discharged the obligation after his/her own payment.

[1] Article 425 (1) of the Civil Code / [2] Article 419 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da52469 delivered on February 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 615) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69712 delivered on September 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2482) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da6560 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1879), Supreme Court Decision 97Da28391 Delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3450), Supreme Court Decision 96Da50896 delivered on December 12, 197 (Gong198Sang, 254)

(1) A person who is a party to a contract shall be liable for damages.

Israur Round Co., Ltd.

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Deputy, Attorneys Gyeong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na67808 delivered on March 11, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The Plaintiff’s liability for damages arising from nonperformance of the obligation under the Plaintiff’s security service agreement and the Defendant’s liability for damages due to the tort is an independent obligation arising from a separate cause or an obligation having the same economic purpose and overlapping one another’s obligation is extinguished by repayment, etc. If one party’s obligation is extinguished by the repayment, etc., the other party’s obligation is also in the so-called quasi-joint and several liability relationship. In the case of multiple joint and several liability parties having the same relationship as above, there may be certain portions of obligation under the principle of equity. The portion to be borne is determined according to the degree of each party’s intent and negligence. If one of the quasi-joint and several obligors obtains joint and several liability by repaying the part to which he

In the same purport, the lower judgment that determined that the Plaintiff may exercise the right to reimbursement on the basis of the apportionment ratio among the Defendants, a quasi-joint and several liability, by repaying the portion of its own apportionment, is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending

2. The court below is just to have determined that the part of the Plaintiff’s joint liability between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is 20% and 80% of the Defendant’s joint liability due to non-joint and several liability relationship. There are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the portion of the joint and several liability between the quasi-joint and several obligors, or in the misunderstanding

3. The grounds such as repayment, which achieve the objective of a claim between the quasi-joint and several obligors, include absolute effect on all the obligors, but the other reasons arise in relation to relative effect. Thus, even if the victim renounced his right to claim damages against one of the obligors or declared his/her intent to waive his/her obligation, it cannot be deemed that the other debtors are effective. This legal doctrine does not change because, in the internal relationship between the obligors, even though one of the obligors was exempted from part of the obligation for compensation by an agreement, he/she again assumes the liability for compensation pursuant to the part of his/her obligation against the other debtors who have discharged the obligation after his/her payment (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da6560 delivered on May 27, 1993).

In the above purport, the court below is just in rejecting the Defendants’ assertion that the Intervenor, the victim of the Plaintiff, was exempted from the obligation under an agreement that did not make any civil or criminal claim against the Defendants, and thus, cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of partial vicarious joint and several obligors’ exemption from liability, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the application

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)