Whether there exists the effect of interruption of prescription by the State as an exercise of right to indemnity under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which was performed by a third party (affirmative)

In accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, when the State exercises in subrogation the right to claim damages against the third party of the person who received benefits after receiving insurance benefits pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the payment promotion comes under the notification of payment under Article 73 of the Budget

Article 73 of the Budget and Accounts Act, Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da1720 Decided February 8, 1977 (Article 73, Article 79, 25, 459Gong556, 9919 of the Budget and Accounts Act)

Korea

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 83Nahap185 decided May 1, 200

From December 5, 1981 to October 21, 1983, the part against the defendant who ordered payment of 4,628,950 won in the original judgment, and the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the annual rate of 5 percent from the next day to the date of full payment, and the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the annual rate of 25 percent from the next day to the date of full payment, shall be revoked,

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the other by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,014,358 won with the annual interest rate of 5% from December 5, 1981 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and the annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim against this part shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of the right to indemnity;

On May 4, 1980, Nonparty 1, an employee of the Defendant, driven the above 18:30 straw trucks owned by the Defendant, and passed the national highway in front of the water sources located in the Gyeongsung-gun, Seosung-dong, and suffered from Nonparty 3 due to its shocking of 534 days old by collision with (vehicle number omitted), and there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the fact that Nonparty 1, who is an employee of the Defendant, did not know that the above 7th straw trucks would be out of the Defendant’s 18:30,000, and that Nonparty 1 was out of the Central Road at the speed of 0,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

According to the above facts, the above accident occurred concurrently with the driver's negligence of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence is two to eight. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the non-party 3 for the damages suffered by the non-party 3 due to the above accident caused by the non-party 1's negligence under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Meanwhile, in full view of the contents of evidence No. 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 2, and No. 2, and No. 3 of the above accident, the plaintiff paid the non-party 1-5 insurance benefits to the non-party 3 within the scope of the industrial accident compensation insurance under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff, the non-party 1-party 1-3, the non-party 1-party 1, 750, 000 won and the non-party 1-8, 18-18-1, 1988.

2. Scope of indemnity;

In light of the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2, Gap 2 who had no dispute over the above facts, Gap 10-10-2, Gap 12-12-2, and the whole purport of oral proceedings, the non-party 3 was physically healthy male for 20 January 20, 1952 and was 5 years old and 5 years old, the non-party 3 was 5 years old and was 8 years old and 4 years old and 5 years old, and the non-party 3 was 5 years old and 5 years old and was 9 years old and 5 years old and 8 years old and was 9 years old and 6 years old and 8 years old and was 5 years old and 6 years old and was 9 years old and 6 years old and 5 years old and 8 years old and 6 years old and was 5 years old and 5 years old and 6 years old and was 1,000 won old.

3. Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription

The defendant filed the lawsuit of this case on September 27, 1983, after three years from May 4, 1980, which was the date of the accident of this case, after the lapse of three years from May 4, 1980, which was the date of the accident of this case. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the non-party 3's right to claim compensation for damages, which was the basis of the lawsuit of this case, has already expired after the completion of prescription. Thus, it is clear in the record that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after three years from the date of becoming aware of the damages and the perpetrator caused by the accident of this case as alleged by the defendant. However, according to the evidence No. 9-1 to No. 6 of the above accident No. 9, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 3 during several times from June 13, 1980 to April 22, 1983, the plaintiff already suspended the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages against the non-party 3.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4,678,950 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from December 5, 1981 to October 21, 1983, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the full payment date of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the court below's judgment has a different conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant who ordered payment exceeding the above cited part of the original judgment is dismissed, and since the defendant's remaining appeal is without merit, the plaintiff's claim for this part shall be revoked, and the costs of lawsuit shall be divided through the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder shall be decided as per Disposition by the defendant.

Judges Jeon Soo-young (Presiding Judge)