[Plaintiff, Appellee] Ssangyong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (formerly Korea Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Cheongwoon Joint Law Office, Lee Jae-won and 2 others)
[Defendant, Appellant] Korea General Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney: Lee Jong-kwan)
[Court Below] Seoul District Court Decision 95Na1476 rendered on April 13, 1995
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Regarding Ground 1
Under Article 15(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) (before its full amendment by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994), the "third party" against whom the right of indemnity is exercised refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship with the injured worker but who bears liability for compensation for the accident, such as through a tort. However, this right of indemnity may also be exercised where the accident arose from a joint tort committed by the third party and the insured employer or its employees, and in such a case, the right of indemnity may be exercised regardless of the insured employer's or its employees' share of liability based on the ratio of fault. It cannot be held that, because a third party who has satisfied the State's claim for indemnity might in the future seek re-indemnification from the insured employer according to the ratio of fault, the right of indemnity cannot be exercised in advance against the insured employer's portion of liability. Furthermore, in this case, the mere fact that the employer was enrolled in industrial accident compensation insurance does not mean that the employer's liability for damages as a joint tortfeasor toward the injured employee does not arise. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who subrogated the right of indemnity arising from the joint discharge of the liability for damages due to joint tort, the amount corresponding to the Defendant's share of liability that was discharged (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da23360, delivered December 8, 1992). Such an interpretation does not, as argued in the grounds of appeal, produce unreasonable results or results contrary to the principle of equity.
Accordingly, the judgment below, which upheld this claim—wherein the Plaintiff, as the insurer under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with non-party Ilyang Sangun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the non-party company"), having paid in full the amount it disbursed to the State as insurance benefits, sought reimbursement from the Defendant of the Defendant's share thereof—was rendered in accordance with the above purport and is justified. There is no error in the judgment below, as argued in the grounds of appeal, based on a misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding the interpretation of "third party" under the aforementioned statutory provision, and the Supreme Court decisions cited in the grounds of appeal concern different factual circumstances and cannot be invoked in this case.
Regarding Grounds 2 and 3
According to the description in Exhibit A No. 2-1 (Judgment), the judgment in the case concerning the State's claim for indemnity against the non-party company held that the State's claim for indemnity against the non-party company was for KRW 71,571,620, which the State had disbursed as insurance benefits within the scope of the injured worker's damages of KRW 92,122,890, together with delay damages thereon. Therefore, even if the non-party company had been granted a 20% reduction for comparative negligence with respect to the injured worker's damages in that lawsuit, this would have had no effect on the amount the non-party company was required to reimburse. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the non-party company was at fault in failing to appeal and thereby finalizing the aforementioned judgment, which did not recognize such comparative negligence.
Furthermore, according to the record, after the above judgment ordering the non-party company to reimburse the State was rendered, and subsequently, in the lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the non-party company seeking confirmation of the non-existence of insurance liability arising from this accident—on the ground that the non-party company, having acquired the accident vehicle in question, did not undergo the procedure for insurance succession under the policy terms—a judgment was rendered against the Plaintiff, whereupon the Plaintiff, without undue delay, paid the amount of the aforementioned judgment together with delay damages. Given these facts, the said delay damages fall within the scope of the amount disbursed for the joint discharge of liability with the Defendant, and it cannot be said that the damages were increased due to the Plaintiff's unjustified contestation of the claim.
Although the reasons given by the court below for rejecting the Defendant's above arguments differ from the foregoing, the outcome is correct. Therefore, the argument disputing that the judgment below contains an error of misunderstanding the legal principles, as argued in the grounds of appeal, cannot ultimately be accepted.
All the grounds of appeal are without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Ahn Yong-deuk (Presiding Justice), Cheon Kyung-song, Ji Chang-kwon, Shin Seong-taek (Justice in charge)