In cases where a third party has compensated for damage to a soldier, etc. due to a joint tort by the State or a third party, the relationship between the exercise of the right to indemnity against the State and the application of the proviso of Article 2 (1)

The proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act is not a provision that denies the State's tort liability against a public official damaged in the course of performing official duties, but a provision that limits the subject of the right to claim damages such as having a public official who is the victim or his/her bereaved family receive compensation for accident compensation, survivor pension, pension for wounds, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and the method of its exercise. Therefore, if the State and a third party jointly commit a tort against a public official such as a soldier in the course of performing official duties, the injured soldier, etc. can not claim direct compensation against the State under the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, but

Article 760 of the Civil Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (81 Gohap5386)

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of appeal, costs of appeal by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and costs of incidental appeal by the plaintiff shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,803,729 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from July 22, 1981 to the full payment day.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant (the plaintiff's claim is partially reduced in the trial)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,014,390 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from July 22, 1981 to full payment.

The judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant litigation performer asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it was instituted without going through a decision of the Compensation Council under the State Compensation Act. However, as recognized later, the lawsuit of this case is followed by the plaintiff as one of the joint tortfeasors in relation to the accident of this case, and the plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the accident, together with the plaintiff, for the performance of the defendant's liability for compensation according to the ratio of the defendant's responsibility within the scope of the joint exemption due to the plaintiff's withdrawal against the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense is groundless.

2. Determination on the merits

(a) Occurrence of claims for indemnity;

1977. 7. 1. 01:00경 경기도 김포군 계양면 고촌리 소재 피고산하 육군 제5330부대의 26평형 조립식철제 막사에 6,600볼트의 고압전류가 흘러들어 감전으로 인하여 그 막사안에 잠자던 병장 소외 1, 방위병 소외 2, 하사 소외 3이 사망하고 방위병 소외 4, 하사 소외 5, 방위병 소외 6이 부상당한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(판결), 같은 호증의 2(화해조서정본), 같은 제3호증의 3(증인신문조서) 원심증인 소외 7의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제2호증(입금표)의 각 기재내용과 위 증인의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 보면, 위 부대에서는 1976. 7. 28.경에는 부대막사와 취사장 및 탑조등에 사용할 전기를 공급받기 위하여 위 고촌리에 설치되어 있는 원고 공사의 6,600볼트 송전선인 고촌지선 87우 15좌 제25호 전주로부터 위 부대로 들어가는 인입선가설공사를 소외 8회사에 도급주어 시행함에 있어 우선 위 부대막사로부터 약20미터 떨어진 지점에 콩크리트전주를 세우고 그 전주에 변압기 및 피뢰기와 접지시설을 한 다음 그로부터 약 50미터 떨어진 원고 공사의 위 송전선 25호 전주에 전선을 연결하였는바 이러한 경우 변압기등을 설치한 위 전주에는 6.9키로볼트 내지 9키로볼트의 피뢰기 2대와 18m/m×1200규격의 접지봉 2개 18m/m×2400규격의 접지봉 1개를 설치하여야 함에도 불구하고 피뢰기는 8.4키로볼트와 3키로볼트짜리 각 1개씩만을 설치하고, 접지봉은 3,300볼트용인 14m/m×1,485 및 14m/m×1,125와 14m/m×1,100짜리 각 1개씩만을 사용하였을 뿐만 아니라 전주상의 완금에도 별도의 접지시설을 하여야 함에도 이러한 시설을 갖추지 아니한 채, 공사를 마치고 같은 해 11. 1.부터 원고공사로부터 전기를 공급받아 사용하여 오다가 사고당일에 안개가 끼고 비가 많이 내리므로써 피뢰기상의, 절연레벨이 악화되면서 방전되고, 접지저항치 역시 상승되어 오던 중 낙뢰로 인하여 이상전류마저 흐르게되자 피뢰기가 파괴되면서 이에 연결된 전선이 완금에 접촉되어 6,600볼트의 전류가 그대로 인입선에 흘러들어가 막사내의 두꺼비집 애관부분이 철제막사와 어스되는 한편 고압전류에 녹은 막사내의 전선이 막사에 닿아 막사에도 고압전류가 흐름으로써 위 사고가 발생한 사실, 일반적 기사업자인 원고공사로서는 수용가의 신청에 의하여 전기공급을 할 경우에는 사전에, 일반전기공작물에 대하여는 그 공작물이 동력자원부령이 정하는 기술수준에 적합한 것인지의 여부를 스스로 조사하여야 하며 자가용 전기공작물에 대하여는 그것이 국가, 지방자치단체가 설치한 것이면 그 소속공무원의 검사, 그밖의 자가 설치한 것이면 지정조사기관에 의한 검사후에 관계관청의 수전 및 자가용전기공작물 시설사용인가가 있어야만 하는 것임에도 불구하고 원고공사는 이러한 조치를 전혀 취하지 아니한 채 군부대의 전기공급요청에 따라 그대로 전기공급을 단행한 잘못이 있었던 사실, 본건 사고후에 위 부상자들 및 그들의 부모와 위 사망자들의 부모들이 원고를 상대로 하여 서울민사지방법원 80가합 (번호 생략)호로서 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구소송을 제기하여 동 법원으로부터 금 79,663,783원을 인용하여 일부 승소판결이 선고되었고 그후 위 사건의 항소심에서 1981. 7. 8. 그 사건의 피고인 원고공사와 원고들인 위 소외인들 사이에 위 사고에 대한 일체의 손해배상금으로서 원고공사는 망 소외 1의 아버지인 소외 9에게 금 9,400,006원, 그 어머니인 소외 10에게 금 4,805,003원, 망 소외 2의 아버지인 소외 11에게 금 8,449,481원, 그 어머니인 소외 12에게 금 4,329,741원, 망 소외 3의 아버지인 소외 13에게 금 8,329,800원, 그 어머니인 소외 14에게 금 4,269,900원 소외 4에게, 금 6,913,636원, 그 아버지인 소외 15 그 어머니인 소외 16에게 각 금 140,000원씩 소외 5에게 금 4,379,591원 그 어머니인 소외 17에게 금 140,000원, 소외 6에게 금 4,327,495원 그 어머니인 소외 18에게 금 140,000원 및 각 이에 대한 1977. 7. 2.부터 완제일까지 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급하고, 위 소외인들의 나머지 청구를 포기하기로 하는 소송상의 화해가 성립되었고 이에 따라 1981. 7. 21. 원고공사는 위 각 소외인들에게 위 화해금 합계 55,764,653원과 이에 대한 1977. 7. 2.부터 완제일까지 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 지연손해금임이 계산상 명백한 금 11,305,710원 55,764,653(0.05×4＋0.05×20/365)＝11,305,710원보다 약간 미달하는 금 11,208,695원을 합한 도합금 66,973,348원을 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증없다.

According to the above facts, this accident occurred concurrently due to the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care required for the supply of electricity to the injured party of the accident of this case. The plaintiff's attorney is liable for damages to the injured party of the accident of this case for reimbursement of 30,803,729 won equivalent to the defendant's unfair ratio of liability out of the above payment of damages to the defendant. The victims of the accident of this case are soldiers on official duty at the time of the accident, and therefore the defendant cannot claim damages against the State under the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act. Although the plaintiff compensates for damages caused by the accident of this case as above, the defendant cannot exercise the right of indemnity against the defendant, as well as the legal relations between the joint tortfeasor and the public official of this case, regardless of the so-called joint tortfeasor's liability, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages to the victim of this case's tort of this case's damages to the part of the other joint tortfeasor's tort, which is the one of the joint tortfeasor's damages compensation damages.

B. Scope of claim for indemnity

(1) In full view of the purport of evidence Nos. 1-1 of the above evidence, each non-party listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1, the victim of the accident of this case, is physically healthy male born on each date listed in paragraph (2) of the same list. The age at the time of the accident of this case is 49 years, and the average male life in Korea is 49 years, respectively. The above non-party can be employed for daily work in rural communities from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1979. The daily wages of rural daily work were 5,697 won per month, and in that case, 42,425 won per month for daily living expenses, and 5 days for the above non-party's injury and 45 days for each of the above non-party's injury and 5 days for each of the above non-party's injury and 5 days for each of the above non-party's ability to lose labor in rural communities.

Thus, each of the above non-party could enjoy monthly profits from the amount listed in Paragraph (6) of the same Table while engaging in daily work in rural communities for each period described in Paragraph (5) of the same Table from January 1, 1980 to the age of 55, unless there were no special circumstances if the accident of this case occurred. Since the accident of this case or loss of labor ability such as the above recognition, the above non-party eventually suffered losses from monthly loss of income listed in Paragraph (7) of the same Table for the same period. It is obvious that this is calculated by deducting the intermediate interest of Paragraph (8) of the same Table from the monthly interest rate of 5/12 per annum at the present price as of the date of the accident of this case, and among them, the actual earnings of the deceased were stated in Paragraph (8) of the same Table to the non-party 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (9) as his parent.

(2) The accident of this case is recognized in light of the empirical rule that Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 died and was injured by Nonparty 4, 5, and 6, and that his parents received the severe mental distress as well as his own. Thus, the circumstances and result of the accident of this case are reasonable amount to be determined in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as family relations among the above Nonparty, and the amount should be determined with 300,000 won for each parent of the above deceased and the injured Nonparty, and 200,000 won for each parent of the above Nonparty.

(3) Examining each individual’s damages claim amount calculated as above, Nonparty 9, the deceased Nonparty 1’s father, KRW 13,738,020, KRW 7,010, KRW 10, KRW 119,010, KRW 111, Nonparty 12, the deceased Nonparty 2’s father, KRW 7,429,69, KRW 696, KRW 14,696, and KRW 14,38,620, KRW 14, KRW 344, KRW 310, KRW 45, KRW 15, KRW 15, and KRW 16, KRW 208, KRW 168, KRW 168, KRW 60, KRW 865, KRW 60, KRW 768, KRW 605, KRW 768, KRW 605, KRW 865, KRW 605, and KRW 97, the mother, whose father is the Plaintiff’s mother.

The defendant's litigation performer has paid the victims of this case with various legal pensions, and it is apparent that the defendant will pay in the future. Among the above money, the part according to the plaintiff's liability ratio should be borne by the plaintiff in the occurrence of this accident. Thus, the plaintiff's defense against this case's claim is proved to offset the damages caused by this case's tort. Thus, as seen above, the plaintiff exempted the victims from liability for the damages caused by this case's tort, and the survivor's pension, etc. paid by the defendant to the victims of this case is separate from the damage claim caused by this case's tort, and it is clear that the defendant's defense is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the plaintiff's claim for the payment of legal interest at the rate of five percent per annum from July 22, 1981 to the full payment date after the date of occurrence of the claim for reimbursement against the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted, and the remainder shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the court below is just in this conclusion, the defendant's appeal and incidental appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs for the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant and the costs for the plaintiff's incidental appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the costs for the plaintiff's incidental appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)