A. Where the scope of damages to be compensated varies depending on the difference in the ratio of fault against the victim of the joint tortfeasor, the extent of invalidity of the liability to compensate for part of the joint tortfeasor is extinguished by the repayment of partial damages by one joint tortfeasor.

B. Whether the legal principle of “A” applies even in cases where the employee himself/herself conceals the tort or partly paid the money by deception after the establishment of the tort, and whether the scope of the employer’s liability to compensate for damages is determined

A. In a case where a joint tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable for damages to other persons, if the scope of damages to be extinguished varies depending on who is liable to compensate for the damages due to the difference in the ratio of fault against the victim of the tort, the scope of damages to be extinguished varies depending on who is liable to compensate for the damages. Thus, in a case where a person liable to compensate for a small amount of damages partly discharged the amount of damages after the establishment of a tort, the portion equivalent to the total amount of the liability owed by the person liable to compensate for the small amount of damages is extinguished. If a person liable to compensate for a large amount of damages partly repaid the amount of damages, the obligation of the person liable to compensate for the small amount of damages is not extinguished, but is equivalent to the portion corresponding to the ratio of fault of the person liable to compensate for the small amount of damages. This is the same in the

B. The legal doctrine of “A” applies likewise to the case where an employee himself/herself does not explicitly pay part of the compensation for damages to the victim after the establishment of the tort, but conceals the tort or pays it as a means of deception, thereby having the effect of terminating the employer’s obligation to compensate for damages.

(a)Article 756, Article 763 (Article 393, Article 396) of the Civil Code;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na57839 delivered on December 14, 1993

1. Of the part of the judgment of the court below against the number of plaintiffs 1 and 76,396,000 among the part against which plaintiffs 1 and 18,830,000 won in the part against which plaintiffs 1 and 12,105,00 won in the part against which plaintiffs 1 and 18,830,000 won in the part against which plaintiffs 1 and 18,830,00 in the part against which plaintiffs 1 and 2

2. The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in relation to the solicitation of insurance contracts, the collection of premiums, and the remittance business of the defendant company, who works as the business office of the defendant company, the non-party 1 misleads the plaintiffs as if he concluded an insurance contract on behalf of the defendant company on behalf of the defendant company, and used the above money at will as insurance premiums, and thereby inflicted damages on the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant company is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the non-party 1's tort as an employer. However, it is reasonable to view the plaintiffs as 40% of the above losses. However, in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant company should compensate for to the plaintiffs, it is reasonable to consider as 40% of the above losses, and then the amount received by the plaintiffs as a prior interest on the agreed insurance money from the non-party 1 on several occasions, shall be deducted, but the compensation amount shall be appropriated first on the date of receiving the above agreed interest, and the remainder shall be appropriated to the principal, and the defendant company shall pay the compensation amount to the plaintiffs.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, since it is clear that the court below judged the defendant's liability for damages due to the non-party 1's illegal act and the defendant's liability for damages on the premise that the defendant's employee's obligation for damages is quasi-joint and several liability, the effect of extinction of the obligation owed by the employee on the premise that it is quasi-joint and several liability, the judgment of the court below is not clear

Meanwhile, according to the records, the alternative purport of the plaintiffs' assertion in the court below is that the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs is the total amount of money obtained by deceit, and because part of the amount was paid by the plaintiff, it is clear that the amount after deducting the amount is the amount of damages. As seen in the above paragraph (1), the court below decided the total amount of the amount acquired by deceit as the amount of damages, and ordered compensation after deducting the amount recognized by the plaintiffs after offsetting negligence, which cannot be deemed to be in violation of the party's right of disposition or the principle of pleading, and there is no error of omission of judgment, omission of reasoning, and omission of reasoning as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

4. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

In cases where a joint tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable for damages to other persons, if the amount of damages is the same, the liability of the other tortfeasor would be extinguished due to absolute effect if the liability of the tortfeasor is partially paid out of the amount of damages. However, in cases where the scope of damages to be paid to the victim varies depending on the degree of damages to be paid by the tortfeasor, the scope of liability to be extinguished depending on who paid the amount of the tort would vary. In other words, in cases where a person liable for a small amount of damages partly paid out of the amount of damages after the establishment of tort, not only the portion equivalent to the total amount of damages paid by the person liable for a large amount of damages, but also if a person liable for a large amount of damages partly paid out of the amount of damages, the liability of the person liable for a small amount of damages is not extinguished, but also limited to the portion corresponding to the ratio of negligence paid by the employer to be paid by the employee (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da53696, Feb. 22, 1994). 198.

According to the records, since the amount paid by Nonparty 1 to the plaintiffs as a favorable interest on the agreed insurance money is deemed to have been paid to conceal his tort, in calculating the scope of compensation for damages by the defendant company according to the employer's liability, the plaintiffs shall set off negligence from the insurance premium equivalent amount obtained by the plaintiffs, and in other words, the part corresponding to this amount shall be calculated by calculating the amount paid by Nonparty 1 to the plaintiffs as a favorable interest on the agreed insurance money, which is equivalent to the ratio of negligence by the defendant company, which is the employer, and only the amount corresponding to this amount shall be deemed to have an effect of extinction of liability in accordance with the legal principles of appropriation for performance. However, the court below, which deducted the total amount of the agreed interest and nominal

5. Therefore, in accordance with the plaintiffs' objection, the part of the part against the plaintiff's 76,396,000 among the part against the plaintiff's 18,380,000 among the part against the plaintiff's 18,380,00 among the part against the plaintiff's 12,105,00 among the part against the plaintiff's 18,380,00 among the part against the plaintiff's 18,380,000 among the part against the plaintiff's 12,105,00 among the part against the plaintiff's 12,000 won against the plaintiff's 20

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)