In a case where the victim cannot obtain the right to claim damages under the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because the negligence of the victim who is the driver of a vehicle is also one of the causes of the victim's death, whether the victim's bereaved family can deduct the insurance proceeds received from the insurance company from the amount of damages due to tort against the employer of the employee

In a case where the victim is unable to acquire the right to claim damages pursuant to the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because the negligence of the victim who is the driver of a vehicle is also one of the causes of death of the victim, the victim's bereaved family is unjust enrichment without any legal cause. Therefore, the victim's bereaved family is entitled to deduct unjust enrichment from the amount of compensation for damages caused by tort against the employer of the employee who has dealt

(a) Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Article 12(c) of the same Act; Article 763(d) of the Civil Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Maximum fever et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 73Na62 delivered on February 27, 1974

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Judgment on the Grounds of Appeal

First, we examine the second ground for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the compensation amount of damages for the damages for the plaintiff's loss against the same plaintiff as the plaintiff's son's son's son's son's death, as KRW 1,500,000,000, respectively. The plaintiff, based on the evidence of the city, received KRW 815,210 as bereaved family's benefits from the Korea Workers' Office as a beneficiary who had worked for the same deceased as her bereaved family member, and received KRW 300,000,000 from the Korea Automobile Insurance Company to which the same son's son's son's son was a member of the family, and further confirmed that the plaintiff received KRW 30,00,00 insurance money from the Korea Automobile Insurance Company to which the above son's son's son was a member of the deceased, and there was a claim for damages due to the defendant's tort, but the above bereaved family's benefits and insurance claims are also in the nature of civil damages.

Article 11(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that when a beneficiary receives insurance benefits under this Act for the same reason, the insured shall be exempted from all the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason. Article 11(2) of the same Act provides that when the beneficiary receives insurance benefits for the same reason, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for accident compensation under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of such amount. When the beneficiary receives insurance benefits under this Act, the beneficiary cannot make any claim for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason, and it clearly states that the beneficiary shall not be entitled to any claim for accident compensation under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of the amount received. Article 15(1) of the same Act provides that the Administrator of the Labor Agency shall subrogate the beneficiary of the insurance benefits to the third party within the limit of the amount of benefits if the beneficiary has received the insurance benefits for the same reason from the third party, the Administrator of the Labor Agency shall not grant any compensation within the limit of the amount of damages received from the third party's act.

However, since Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that a person who operates an automobile for his own interest shall be liable to compensate for damages when he thought that he did not neglect to pay attention to the operation of his automobile and that he did not interfere with the structure and functions of the vehicle, and that the non-party's liability for damages under the provisions of Article 3 can be claimed against the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the non-party's owner of the accident under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, because the non-party's 0 driver's duty of care should be deducted from the 0 driver's negligence on the part of the non-party's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 0 driver's 10 driver's 10 driver's 10 driver's 10 driver's 10 driver's 200 driver's 10 driver's 20 driver's 20 driver's 1.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)