(a) Purport of right to indemnity against a third person under Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

(b) Whether or not a beneficiary of insurance money under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act may be exempted from the damage liability of a third person who is the perpetrator;

A. Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides that the Administrator of the Labor Agency shall subrogate the beneficiary’s right to claim damages against a third party within the scope of the benefits paid to the third party, on the premise that the beneficiary’s right to claim damages against the third party.

B. Since the beneficiary's claim for damages against the perpetrator is an ordinary claim for tort, even if the beneficiary has the right to indemnity against the third party, the beneficiary may be exempted from all or part of the third party's claim for damages in accordance with the principle of judicial autonomy.

Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da2119 Decided February 14, 1978

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea's legal representative of Kimchi-he Kim Jae-chul and the right of representation

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na615 delivered on August 30, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, with respect to the damage caused by the death of the deceased, in the guest room located in the guest room located in the defendant's management's ○○○○, the plaintiff was established as a compromise of the deceased's bereaved family (the deceased's son, son 2) and the defendant's 200,000 won and received it. However, it is obvious that the settlement amount was merely about the consolation money of the bereaved family and the contents of the settlement amount are not about the deceased's loss but about the deceased's loss, and the settlement was not about the deceased's wife's own consciousness, etc., and as such, it was obvious that the settlement did not have any effect as to the damage caused by the death of the deceased, since it was not asserted by the fact-finding court, it is a fact that there is no effect as to the damage caused by the death of the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be deemed an appropriate

It is like the theory that Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act prescribes the scope of bereaved family members to receive the benefits under Article 25 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but as long as the fact-finding court renders a compromise with the bereaved family members, it is not the legal beneficiary and it is not the original beneficiary.

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Agreement), which does not conflict with the formation, the defendant paid 200,000 won as consolation money to the representative of the deceased's bereaved family members (a separate expense incurred in the Yeongdeungpo-gu), and the representative of bereaved family members agreed not to hold the defendant liable for all civil and criminal liabilities in the future. Accordingly, the above agreement is justified in the judgment of the court below that the above agreement reached a compromise on the damages incurred to the whole part of the expenses incurred to the Simpo-gu.

According to Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, when insurance benefits have been provided due to a disaster caused by an act of a third party, the Administrator of the Labor Agency shall subrogate the right to claim damages against the third party to the extent of the benefits paid to the person who received the benefits. However, this is merely the purport of subrogated the right to claim damages against the third party within the scope of the benefits,

Since the beneficiary's right to claim damages against the perpetrator is a claim for an illegal act, there is such provision, so it cannot be said that there is a complaint with the nature of the above right to claim damages. Accordingly, the beneficiary may exempt the third party from all or one part of the damages liability that the third party bears in accordance with the principle of judicial autonomy (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2119 delivered on February 14, 1978).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's claim for this case based on subrogation right is just because it was exempted from the part exceeding KRW 200,000 among damages caused by the deceased non-party 1's death as a result of an agreement between the representative of the deceased non-party 1's surviving family and the defendant, which is the industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder, and the defendant's death, exceeded the amount of KRW 200,00 (excluding the delayed expenses).

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)