(a) Where an employer who has been liable for damages caused by a joint tort committed by an employee with a third party, may exercise the right to indemnity against the third party, and the scope of its indemnity;

(b) The significance and the classification of property damage caused by the tort;

(c) The scope of damages suffered by the final purchaser due to the above unlawful act in a case where the ownership transfer registration for the invalidation of the cause has been completed under the relevant articles on the land owned by another person and the real owner has filed a lawsuit against the final purchaser for cancellation registration and the judgment in favor of the owner became final and conclusive after the ownership transfer registration has been completed in sequence with other persons

A. In a case where an employee and a third party inflict damages on the victim due to a joint tort, an employee and a third party are jointly and severally liable with each other as joint tortfeasor. Meanwhile, an employer's liability for damages is a substitute for an employee's liability for damages, and an employer is also deemed as a quasi-joint and several liability relationship with a third party. Therefore, in a case where an employer compensates the victim for damages exceeding the share of the employee's liability determined by the ratio of liability between an employee and a third party, the employer may exercise the right to reimbursement against the third party, and the scope of the claim for reimbursement is limited to the share of the third party

B. Property damage caused by an illegal act refers to the difference between the property status that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property status that would have caused the illegal act, and it is divided into the form of active damage whose existing benefit would have been lost and the form of passive damage whose benefit would have been lost.

C. In a case where a real owner of land owned by another person has completed the registration of ownership transfer for invalidation by forging documents related to the registration of ownership transfer, such as a certificate of sale and power of delegation, and sold it again to another person, and thereafter a lawsuit for registration of ownership transfer has been filed against the final buyer, and the judgment in favor of the owner became final and conclusive, the damages suffered by the final buyer due to the above tort constitute positive damages, which is the loss of existing interest, in i.e., the amount contributed to the belief that the registration of ownership transfer becomes effective, and the compensation for the damages incurred by the final buyer due to the above tort is the amount contributed to purchase of the above land. Since the final buyer did not acquire ownership from the beginning

(a) Articles 756 and 760 (Article 425) of the Civil Act; (b) Article 763 (Article 393);

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da3075 delivered on January 19, 1982 (Gong1982,259) (Gong1982,259) (Gong1988,904 delivered on April 27, 198). Supreme Court Decision 66Da503 delivered on May 3, 196 (Gong2423 delivered on March 14, 1978 (Gong1978,10731) (Gong1978,10731) (Gong1982,81,81558 delivered on July 27, 1988)

Korea

Attorney Park Jae-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na44693 delivered on August 13, 1991

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part ordering payment exceeding the amount of 47,956,160 won and the amount of 5 percent per annum from July 5, 1990 to August 13, 1991 and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer.

(1) In light of the records, at the date of the eighth hearing of the court below, the plaintiff's performer himself stated that the cause of the claim in this case is compensation for damages caused by joint tort by the defendant and the non-party 1, who is a public official belonging to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff shall be indemnified to the defendant who is the person who committed such tort. Thus, the court below was just in determining that the plaintiff's claim in this case is a claim for reimbursement and there

(2) In cases where an employee and a third party inflict damages on the victim due to a joint tort, an employee and a third party are jointly and severally liable with each other as joint tortfeasors. Meanwhile, an employer's liability for damages is a substitute for an employee's liability for damages, and an employer is also deemed as a quasi-joint and several liability relationship with a third party. Therefore, in cases where an employee and a third party compensates the victim for damages exceeding the employee's share of liability, the employer may exercise the right to reimbursement against the third party, and it is reasonable to view that the scope of reimbursement is limited to the third party's share of liability.

In light of the above legal principles, in this case, damages suffered by the final buyer of each land of this case due to the defendant and the non-party 1, a state public official, are in a non-joint and several relationship between the damages liability under the State Compensation Act and the damages liability borne by the defendant, a joint and several liability. Thus, in case where the plaintiff compensates the victim in excess of the share of the non-party 1, which is set forth in the ratio of the responsibility between the defendant and the non-party 1, the right to indemnity can be exercised against the defendant and the scope of the compensation shall

In light of the above purport, the court below held that each of the above two persons' share of liability is 1/2 of the defendant's joint tort of this case and the non-party 1's personal relation and all other circumstances shown in the records, and held that the plaintiff's right to indemnity was accepted only for the defendant's share of liability. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the claim for indemnity against the joint tortfeasor, as alleged in the arguments. Thus,

2. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(1) The facts established by the court below in this case are as follows.

On October 4, 1984, Non-party 1, public officials of the Ministry of National Defense and the liquor-gun 8 belonging to the plaintiff, conspired with the defendant, forged the sale certificate, power of delegation, etc. of the land of this case owned by the State to the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, who is the defendant and the non-party 1 or the defendant, using it, sold the above land in the non-party 1 to the non-party 1,48,30,00 won to the non-party 1, and transferred the registration of ownership transfer to the non-party 5's non-party 1 to the non-party 5's non-party 1,960,00, and sold the above land to the non-party 5's non-party 2 to the non-party 5's non-party 1,985, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 5's non-party 1, the above non-party 1, the non-party 98's house.

Around 1986, the plaintiff knew of the above facts. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the non-party 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 80, 5, 198, 200, 3, 400, 198, 300, 60, 198, 198, 300, 60, 300, 198, 400, 196, 60, 300, 60, 198, 60, 190, 60, 300, 196, 60, 198, 60, 300, 196, 60, 300, 196, 60, 60, 196, 30, 196, 30, 196, 40, 196, 196, 206, 3,

In light of the above facts, the lower court determined that the damages suffered by the Defendant 2 to the Defendant 1 and the final purchaser of each of the above lands were 80 won by receiving only a part of the market price of each of the above lands from the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 2, and that the damages incurred by the Defendant 2 and the final purchaser of each of the above lands were 80 won, 40 won and 80 won, 60 won and 80 won, 40 won and 80 won, 60 won and 40 won and 80 won, 60 won and 480 won and 40 won, 60 won and 80 won and 40 won, and the damages incurred by the Defendant and the final purchaser of each of the above lands were 80 won and 60 won, 40 won and 206 won and 480 won, and the damages incurred by the above final purchaser of each of the above lands were 80 won and 480 won and 206 won, 360 won and 486 won.

(2) Property damage caused by an illegal act refers to the difference between the property status that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property status that would have been caused by the illegal act, and it is divided into the form of active damage whose existing benefit would have been lost and the form of passive damage whose benefit would not have been gained in the future.

As in this case, where Nonparty 1, who is a public official belonging to the plaintiff, forged documents related to each land of this case, owned by the defendant, including a sale certificate, power of attorney, etc., completed the registration of ownership transfer under his own or a third party's name, sold it again to the third party, and subsequently, the plaintiff's final decision in favor of the plaintiff became final and conclusive after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation registration against the final buyer, the damages suffered by the final buyer due to the tort, such as Nonparty 1, etc. constitute the amount of money contributed to purchase of each land of this case, i.e., to believe that the registration of ownership transfer becomes effective, and to purchase the land of this case. This constitutes active damages (the final buyer did not acquire the ownership of each land of this case from the beginning, and thus cannot lose the ownership of each land of this case only by the final decision ordering cancellation of the registration of each land of this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the loss of ownership of each land of this case cannot be caused.)

However, the court below held that the damages suffered by the final purchaser of each of the lands of this case due to the tort by the defendant and the non-party 1 are damages caused by the impossibility of acquiring the ownership of each of the lands of this case after the judgment ordering the cancellation registration thereof becomes final and conclusive, and that the damages amount is equivalent to the market price of each of the lands of this case at the time when the above judgment became final and conclusive. The purport of this decision is to recognize the passive damages on the ground that the final purchaser could not acquire the ownership of each of the lands of this case if the defendant and non-party 1

However, in the case where the defendant and the non-party 1 made an illegal registration by forging relevant documents, the final purchaser of each of the lands of this case could not acquire ownership of each of the lands of this case in the absence of such tort, and the final purchaser could not acquire ownership of each of the lands of this case. Thus, there is no room for recognizing the passive damage premised on the fact that if there was no such tort, the ownership of each of the lands of this case would have been acquired

Any party member who expressed a different opinion as above with regard to the scope of damages caused by the above tort shall be subject to the destruction of the judgment below, 1988, Oct. 11, 1988.

Ultimately, the final buyer is deemed to have suffered damages that could not acquire ownership of each of the lands of this case due to the final judgment ordering the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in his name, and the amount equivalent to the market price of each of the lands of this case at the time of the final judgment above cannot be deemed to have been determined as damages by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the scope of damages caused by tort.

(3) However, according to the facts of the decision of the court below, the sales price paid by four persons, including the non-party Lee Jin-jin, who is the final purchaser of the instant land No. 1 was 148,30,000 won and the amount was 95,912,320 won, etc., which was less than the above amount, and thus, the plaintiff paid for the damages of the interest accrued therefrom. Thus, the judgment below which acknowledged the plaintiff's right to indemnity against the compensation amount was justified and the judgment below which found the plaintiff's right to indemnity against the compensation amount did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, but did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, but the sales price paid by the non-party Lee Jin-jin, who is the final purchaser of the instant land No. 2, was 15,960,000 won and the above amount was 16,387,740 won, and the plaintiff was 16,740

In addition, the land Nos. 3 and 4 of this case is an ordinary amount of damages suffered by the above non-party among the total purchase price of KRW 115,550,00 and the sale price of KRW 87,50,000 paid by 9 such as the non-party 15,50,000 paid by the non-party 1,50,000, the final purchaser of the apartment house constructed on the ground, and the sale price of KRW 87,50,000 paid by the non-party 15,50,000 (which can be viewed as damages due to special circumstances of the removal of the building). Even after examining the records, there is no evidence to determine the amount of damages since it cannot be known that the amount equivalent to the land price out of each of the sale price of each of the above above land is much certain. Thus, it is difficult to maintain this part of the judgment below.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below on the scope of damages, the judgment of the court below on the part of the defendant's repayment amounting to 47,956,160 won (95,912,320 won x 1/2) and damages for delay in excess of the amount of redemption of the defendant's land No. 1 of this case shall be exempted from the reversal because it has errors in law

(4) In addition, the plaintiff's ground of appeal in this case is that the court below's decision to exercise the right to indemnity against the defendant even though the plaintiff's ground of appeal for damages caused by the defendant's tort constituted an unlawful violation of the principle of pleading. However, since the plaintiff's ground of appeal in this case is already determined in the judgment on the ground of appeal by the plaintiff's performer, the above ground of appeal is without merit.

In addition, the author argues that the Plaintiff granted the benefits of the reduction of the sale price to the final buyer pursuant to the provisions on the voluntary return of concealed state property, even though the pertinent land is not a concealed state property, is not a concealed state property, and that there is no proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s tort, and that such benefits cannot be deemed as a performance of liability for damages against the final buyer. However, according to the facts established at the time of the original adjudication, the Plaintiff decided to sell each of the instant land to the final buyer by the method of compensating the final buyer for damages and to choose to reduce part of the purchase price, and that the criteria for reduction was determined by applying the provisions of the State Property Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as to the voluntary return of concealed state property, so the amount of reduction as above is nothing more than that of the Plaintiff’s compensation

In addition, the author argues that the court below erred in misunderstanding the legal principles of liability for damages arising from the sale of another person's right even though the transferor is liable for damages only to the first transferee who becomes the direct transferee of another person's real estate in the case of a transfer by transfer by transfer by transfer by transfer by transfer, the court below held that the plaintiff's joint exemption was committed by misunderstanding the legal principles of liability for damages arising from the sale of another person's right. However, in this case, the plaintiff's obligation to compensate for damages to the transferee by the public official belonging to the plaintiff is based on the duty to compensate for the tort

In addition, the issue is that the court below found the defendant's share of the tort of this case to be identical to that of the non-party 1 who was a public official belonging to the plaintiff, and the defendant merely aided the defendant at the same ratio, but the court below erred by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence. However, upon examining the evidence established by the court below based on the records, the court below's decision that the defendant and the non-party 1's joint tort of this case, the defendant and the non-party 1's personal relation, etc. were 1/2 of the share of the above two persons' share of liability, and there is no

In addition, the issue is that the judgment of the court below that did not consider whether the final buyer of each land of this case is valid or not, and that did not recognize that there was the negligence of direction and supervision with respect to the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff, who is the plaintiff, is illegal. However, barring any special circumstance, the real estate buyer is not obligated to investigate whether the registration of the seller's name is substantially effective or not, and even if examining the record, there is no special circumstance to deem that it is reasonable to impose the duty of investigation upon the final buyer in this case, and there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's negligence in the direction and supervision. Therefore

3. Therefore, from July 5, 1990 to August 13, 1991, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded, and the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed. The 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Young-chul (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho