The claim for indemnity against the State in relation to joint tort and the need for the procedure of transfer

If a person in a joint tort relation with the State claims for the amount of compensation by exercising the right of indemnity against the State, it is not necessary to go through the procedure of the State Compensation Act.

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Korea

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (73Gahap387)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant jointly and severally with the non-party 1 corporation (the co-defendant of the first instance trial) shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,420,689 with the annual interest rate of 5% from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In light of the record as to the main defense of safety, the plaintiff's claim of this case is obvious that it is a claim for reimbursement by exercising the right to indemnity against the other party (the defendant) from among the joint tortfeasors, and in such a case, it is not necessary to go through the procedure of the establishment of the State Compensation Act. Therefore, the defense that the compensation council's decision on compensation is unlawful is

Examination of the merits shall be made.

In light of the whole purport of pleadings, the non-party 5, who is a driver of the non-party 1 corporation (joint defendant of the court of first instance) and the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 3 corporation's (vehicle number omitted)'s (the non-party 1 corporation's vehicle number)'s (the non-party 5 corporation's front-time bus number omitted)'s (the non-party 1 corporation's inter-party 4 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 5 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 3 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 4 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 5 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 2 corporation's inter-party 1 corporation's inter-party 2 corporation's inter-party 3 corporation's main.

Therefore, the above accident of human life damage occurred when the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, who is the employee of the non-party 1 corporation, and the owner and the owner of the above telegraph and the above support line, are the owner of the above vehicle in each vehicle operation of the plaintiff company, and the defendant, who is the owner and the owner of the above support line, failed to maintain the electric support line from the ground to the appropriate height so that the vehicle travelling through the above construction of the above structure can safely pass through the above structure, and the above support line increased from the ground to the 50 cent meters above the ground. Therefore, the above non-party company and the plaintiff and the defendant are jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by the victims

However, as the above main wire line requires a high level of tension in its use and nature, in installing the main wire line of this case, it is installed at a height of 5.2 meters above the ground as prescribed by the construction standard construction method. Thus, the first accident of this case is attributable to the negligence of driving of the above non-party company at all, and the above main wire line of this case, which is the defendant's affiliated organization, was dispatched to the site without delay the report of accident, but the accident of human life of this case occurred due to the negligence of driving of the above non-party company at the site of the above non-party company, but the defendant's failure to compensate the defendant because the main wire line of this case requires a high level of tension in its use and nature, and the main wire line of this case was installed at the 5th place of this case's main wire line of this case's main wire line of this case's construction without any defect in the construction standard of the above non-party 1, as long as the main wire line of this case was installed at the site of the above non-party 5's main ship.

Therefore, the Gwangju Electric Call Bureau, which is in charge of the management of all-round lights, has been aware of the fact that the main line was installed across the street at the exhibition site, and it can be easily predicted that the occurrence of an accident caused by traffic congestion as an accident caused by the extension of the main line above the ground. Therefore, upon receipt of the report of the breakdown like the exhibition, it should take measures to prevent accidents caused by the above defects, such as without delay called out to the site and making a warning sign, and have taken measures to repair the defects. However, the above telegraph and telephone Bureau did not take any measures to ensure that 1 hours after the first accident and 35 minutes have passed after receiving the report of the accident, and that the defect of the above structure (the extension of the main line up to 50 cent above the ground) caused human life damage in this case is due to the negligence of the non-party 1 corporation, and even if the defendant is not negligent, the above defendant's assertion is not justified.

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, which are acknowledged to have been genuine by the testimony of non-party 2 as to the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 195, which are acknowledged to have been genuine by the testimony of the non-party 15 of the first instance trial witness, and the testimony of the above witnesses, the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case is 1,73,045 won as stated in the separate sheet, and the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case is 1,73,06,195 won (the insurance money paid by the non-party 1,006,195 won, which is recognized to have been jointly exempted by the plaintiff's testimony, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the non-party 10,196,195 won to the plaintiff according to the above ratio of damages to the non-party 101/10.

The Plaintiff’s attorney asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 187,644 as compensation for the recovery of utility poles due to the accident other than the above recognized damages, which was paid to Defendant Busan metropolitan telephone station, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 100,619 won to the plaintiff with 100,619 won and the next day from December 12, 1973 to the next day from the date of the delivery of the complaint of this case. The plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit of this case is reasonable and reasonable within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are just and reasonable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as the result of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the costs of appeal are borne by the defendant who is the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)