[1] Where an industrial accident occurred due to a joint tort committed by a third party and a policyholder, whether the exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 15(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is and the scope thereof

[2] In case where a business owner who purchased an industrial accident compensation insurance is a joint tortfeasor for a victimized worker, whether he/she has a duty to comply with a third party's claim for compensation.

[1] Article 15 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship between the victimized worker and is liable for damages caused by tort, etc. against the victimized worker. However, the right to indemnity can be exercised even when the injured worker and the insured or his/her employees' joint tort occurred. In this case, the right to indemnity can be exercised regardless of the burden of the insured or his/her employees' fault ratio, regardless of the burden of the insured or his/her employees' fault ratio. The third party who has complied with the State's indemnity can not exercise the right to indemnity as to the part of the insured's share as to the insured's share, as expected in advance, even if the third party who has responded to the State's indemnity should re-

[2] Since a business owner cannot be deemed to be liable for damages as a joint tortfeasor with respect to victimized workers, on the ground that he/she has subscribed to industrial accident compensation insurance, the business owner is obligated to pay the insurer who has subrogatedly acquired the right of indemnity due to joint tort liability liability for damages, the exempted amount among his/her share of the insurer.

[1] Article 15(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 682 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 11 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 682 of the Commercial Act

Twin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Korea Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Cheongdong Law Office, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11448 delivered on May 1, 201

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na1476 delivered on April 13, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 15 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) refers to a third party who has no industrial accident insurance relationship between the victimized worker and is liable for damages caused by tort against the victimized worker. However, the right to indemnity can be exercised even in cases where the injured worker and the insured or the employees' joint tort are caused by the tort. In such cases, the right to indemnity can be exercised regardless of the burden of the insured or the employees' negligence. The third party who has complied with the State's indemnity can not exercise the right to indemnity as to the portion of the insured's apportionment in advance, and it cannot be said that the employer cannot exercise the right to indemnity. In this case, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages as joint tortfeasor of the victimized worker because the employer has subscribed to the industrial accident compensation insurance. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages as joint tortfeasor of the victimized worker due to the joint tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da328999 decided Feb. 29, 1992).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim of this case against the defendant, which is the insurer under an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the non-party Ilyang-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd."), paid in full the amount of money paid as insurance benefits to the country, and sought reimbursement of the share of the expenses to be borne by the defendant is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of a third party as stipulated in the above provision, and the Supreme Court decisions pointed out by the theory of lawsuit cannot be invoked in

With respect to the second and third points

According to the evidence No. 2-1 (Judgment), in a judgment on the claim for reimbursement against the non-party company of the State, the amount of the claim for reimbursement against the non-party company of the State shall be limited to KRW 92,122,890 and KRW 71,571,620 paid by the State as insurance benefits within the scope of the amount of damages suffered by the victimized worker. Thus, even if the non-party company is recognized as offsetting 20% out of the amount of damages suffered by the victimized worker of the above lawsuit, the amount of the claim for reimbursement against the non-party company of the State shall not be affected by the non-party company, and therefore, the non-party company shall not be deemed to have any negligence in deciding the non-party company

In addition, according to the records, the judgment of the court below ordering the non-party company to redeem the vehicle of this case, and the non-party company transferred the vehicle of this case to the non-party company, and subsequently, the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff was rendered in the lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of insurance claim due to this accident that the plaintiff filed against the non-party company for the reason that the non-party company did not follow the insurance succession procedure under the terms and conditions after the non-party company was transferred the vehicle of this case, the plaintiff paid damages for delay including damages for delay to the above judgment without delay. If the facts are identical, the above damages for delay constitutes the

The reasoning of the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s above assertion is different, but it is correct in its outcome, and therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)