(a) Definition of a third party under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

(b) Application scope of Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

(c) Scope of the State's right of indemnity under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

A. In Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the term "third party" refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship between the victimized employee and who is liable for damages caused by tort against the victimized employee.

(b)Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies with or without regard to cases where the disaster in question occurred by only a third party's illegal act, or where a third party's illegal act and an insured or his employee's illegal act are concurrently committed by the insured or his employee.

C. The State's right to indemnity under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is "the subrogation of the right to indemnity against the third party by the recipient of the benefit". Thus, the scope of the right to indemnity is the same as the scope of the right to indemnity against the third party who received the benefit within the limit of the benefit amount

Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2429 Decided April 8, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 77Da1641 Decided January 17, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 78Da1246 Decided October 10, 1978

Korea

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 85Na199 delivered on October 17, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who is the driver of the above truck 8 tons of the defendant company (vehicle registration number 1 omitted) around 17:50 on September 29, 1982, the non-party 1, who is the operator of the above truck, operated the above truck and operated the National Highway in Daegu-gun, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, the insured of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (vehicle registration number 2 omitted) conflict with the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 7, who suffered damages from the above accident, and rejected the plaintiff's damages claim against the above defendant 15.

In addition, the state's right to indemnity under the above provision is the subrogation of the victim's right to indemnity against the third party. The scope of the right to indemnity is also the same as the scope of the claim for damages against the third party who received benefits within the limit of the amount of benefits. Therefore, in this case where the state is subrogated to the victim's right to indemnity against the defendant who committed tort due to the lack of any negligence, regardless of the defendant's ratio of fault (the ratio of negligence with the above non-party 2 as joint tortfeasor) in the accident of this case, the court below recognized the whole amount of the damage claim against the defendant of this case within the limit of the amount of insurance benefits of the plaintiff as the compensation amount of this case, regardless of the plaintiff's insurance benefits amount's third party's damage claim amount, and it cannot be adopted merely because it is an independent opinion that the extent of indemnity against the defendant, who is a third party of the state, should be limited to the amount in accordance with the defendant's ratio of fault against

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)