In case where the victim was paid medical expenses from an automobile insurance company to which the perpetrator was a party, whether the part equivalent to the negligence of the victim out of the medical expenses should be deducted from the offender's damages

The part equivalent to the negligence of the victim out of the amount of medical expenses paid by the Korean Automobile Insurance Company that has joined the perpetrator, but the perpetrator bears it. Therefore, even if the claim is not related to the medical expenses, it shall be deducted from the amount of damages of the perpetrator.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1123 Decided August 29, 1967, 75Da153 Decided July 22, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 80Da452 Decided May 27, 1980, 80Da2316 Decided June 23, 1981

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na773 delivered on September 4, 1980

Of the part against the defendant as to the property damage of the lower judgment, the part of KRW 6,268,784 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the defendant's assertion that the part equivalent to the plaintiff's negligence among the amount of 4,631,500 won of the medical expenses already paid by the Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. should be deducted from the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant, the court below determined that the defendant's above assertion was groundless since the defendant did not have the right to return the above medical expenses and there was no right to subrogate the above insurance company, which is the above insurer's creditor of unjust enrichment return, since the plaintiff paid the above amount to the plaintiff's medical expenses. However, in the case of this case where the plaintiff did not claim for medical expenses, the above medical expenses already paid are not in the nature of deduction from the amount of damages, and even if the purport of the defendant's assertion was accepted for offset as the claim for return of unjust enrichment of the same amount on the ground that

However, since the court below also recognized that there was negligence on the plaintiff in the instant case, the part equivalent to the plaintiff's negligence among the medical expenses paid by the above insurance company to which the defendant was a party shall be borne by the plaintiff, even though it is unfair that the defendant bears it, so even if the claim in this case is not related to medical expenses, it shall be deducted from the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 67Da1123 delivered on August 29, 1967 and 80Da452 delivered on May 27, 1980). Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion on this point for the above reasons cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to comparative negligence in calculating the amount of compensation for damages or in calculating the amount of compensation for damages, and it is reasonable to point

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the part concerning the property damage in accordance with the defendant's objection shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)