Relationship between the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the right to claim damages under the Civil Act.

A person who has suffered from a traffic accident may exercise a right to claim reimbursement under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act without exercising it, even if it is possible to exercise a right to claim reimbursement under the Civil Act.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 11 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1951 delivered on February 10, 1975

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Gwangju High speed Co., Ltd.

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap332)

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant 7,028,624 won and the part against the plaintiff 2 in excess of the amount calculated by the rate of five percent per annum from November 10, 1969 to the full payment date and the part against which the plaintiff 2 lost.

The plaintiff 1's claim corresponding to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 50,000 won with 50% interest per annum from November 10, 1969 to the date of full payment.

All appeals by plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, and 5, the remaining appeals by the defendant against plaintiffs 1 and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs 1 are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be ten minutes, and the remaining part shall be borne by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant respectively.

The defendant shall pay 14,750,000 won to the plaintiff 1, 100,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 50,000 won to the plaintiff 3,4, and 50,000 won and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from November 10, 1969 to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 2,682,467 won, 50,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 20,000 won per annum from November 10, 1969 to the date of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be revoked.

All claims by plaintiffs, etc. are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

According to the court below's reasoning, the non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4 witness witness 5, 6, 7, 8, and non-party 9 witness at the court below's trial and the non-party 11 witness at each of the non-party 10 and the non-party 11 witness at the court below's trial (excluding the non-party 1 witness before and after the court below's examination result) and the non-party 12 and 13's appraisal result, the non-party 14, the operator of the non-party 14, who is the non-party 14, are not the plaintiff company's (vehicle number omitted)'s own ability to verify the facts of the non-party 1's own car and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1'

As to this, the defendant's attorney argued that this accident occurred due to negligence on the left-hand side side side of the bus belonging to the defendant company, which is the front side of the bus operated by the plaintiff 1 while driving the bus in excess of the central line of the road where the accident occurred. Thus, even if the defendant did not compensate for this accident and the defendant was negligent in the occurrence of this accident, it should be considered in determining the amount of compensation for this accident as well as the plaintiff's negligence. Thus, considering the above evidence, the point of this accident is about 11 meters, and the road without the central line is a non- packing road. Thus, the defendant's tourist bus operated by the plaintiff 1 is a road without the central line. In this case, it is acknowledged that the accident occurred due to the collision between the plaintiff 1 and the bus operated by the plaintiff 1, and the accident is not attributable to the plaintiff 1's negligence. Thus, the defendant's assertion that this accident is not attributable to the plaintiff 1's negligence. Thus, the plaintiff 1's negligence is not attributable to the plaintiff 1's negligence.

In addition, the defendant's attorney asserted that the plaintiff 1 was paid medical care expenses, temporary disability compensation benefits, disability benefits, etc. under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and that the plaintiff did not cause any damage to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff can exercise the right to benefit under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the right to claim damages under the Civil Act due to tort. Therefore, the defendant's argument is groundless.

2. Calculation of damages;

(a) Property damage;

1. Profit-making:

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff 1 can be acknowledged as having been 32 years and 6 months old at the time of the accident. According to Gap evidence No. 3 (Korean simplified life table) without dispute over the establishment, it can be acknowledged that the average life life life life life life life life life life of the Republic of Korea is 39.43 years old. Thus, according to Gap evidence No. 4 (Prohibition of Insurance Benefits) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff 1 can be recognized as having been 1,099 won and obtained 780 won prior to the accident at the time of this accident, and since the plaintiff 1 can be deemed to have been 20 years and 50 years old at the time of the accident at the time of this accident at the time of 20 years old, 29 years old, 30 years old, 29 years old, 30 years old, 29 years old, 30 years old, 197, 39 years old, 29.1.

2. Medical expenses, etc.

Since there is no dispute over Gap 6-1, 5-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 5-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, 9, 1, 6-2, and 9-1, 1,000,000 won-1,00 won.

3. Amount to be reimbursed by the defendant;

Therefore, the total amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff 1 due to the accident is KRW 5,389,251 and KRW 19,306,046, total amount of medical expenses and KRW 24,695,297, and KRW 24,695,297, such as medical expenses and KRW 5,389,251, and KRW 24,695,297, as seen earlier, due to the negligence on the part of Plaintiff 1, the victim, who is the victim, for the damages caused by the accident. Considering the above amount, the amount that the Defendant is liable for compensation to Plaintiff 1 is equivalent to KRW 17,00,00,000. The above amount is the amount of KRW 6,425,473 ($ 6,211,578 + KRW 213,895) and the amount of compensation already paid by the Plaintiff under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, KRW 1,297,583, and the amount to be deducted.

(b) Mental damage;

As seen above, since the plaintiff 1 suffered from the injury due to the accident in this case, it is clear that the other plaintiff 3, 4, and 5, who are the plaintiff 2 and his children and his children, were suffering from the mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is recognized to have a reasonable amount of KRW 200,000 for the plaintiff 1, and KRW 100,000 for the plaintiff 2 and KRW 30,000 for each of the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 for the plaintiff 2, considering all circumstances such as the circumstance of the accident in this case, the part and degree of the injury, and the status relationship as seen above.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 7,028,624, KRW 100,00 for the plaintiff 2, and KRW 30,00 for the plaintiff 3,4, and KRW 500 per annum from November 10, 1969 to the full payment date following the date of the accident sought by the plaintiff. The part against the plaintiff 1 and 2 among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the part against the defendant's partial appeal and the appeal against the plaintiff 2 are with merit, so the part against the plaintiff 1 and the part against the plaintiff 2 against the plaintiff 2 against the above recognition limit is revoked, and the claim against the plaintiff 2 against the plaintiff 2 against the plaintiff 3,4,00, and the part against the plaintiff 2 against the above revocation shall be accepted, and the part against the plaintiff 1's judgment and the decision against the plaintiff 3,5,000 shall not be accepted, and the part against the plaintiff 1 and the decision against the plaintiff 2 shall be dismissed.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim