[Plaintiff, Appellee] Korea Trucking Association (Law Firm Moak, Attorney Lee Min-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellant] ○○○ Co., Ltd. (Kim & Sung LLC, Attorney Lim Dong-guk, Counsel for the defendant)
[Judgment Below] Jeonju District Court Decision 2020Na1663 decided December 23, 2020
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary brief on grounds of appeal submitted after the deadline, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined.
1. Relevant Legal Principles
A. Scope of the Right of Indemnity of One Joint Tortfeasor or Its Insurer
Joint tortfeasors bear an improper joint and several obligation vis-à-vis the obligee, but in the internal relationship among the joint tortfeasors, there exists a certain allocation of liability shares. Where one of the joint tortfeasors has discharged more than its own share of liability and thereby secured the joint discharge of the obligation, it may exercise a right of indemnity against the other joint tortfeasors in proportion to their respective shares of liability. Therefore, in order for a joint tortfeasor to have a right of indemnity, it is not necessarily required that the tortfeasor compensate the victim for the entirety of the damage, but it must have paid compensation exceeding its own share of liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28426, decided February 9, 2006). The same applies where an insurer or a mutual aid business operator, under an insurance contract or mutual aid contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasors, pays damages to the victim in the form of insurance proceeds or the like, and thereby exercises a right of indemnity against the other joint tortfeasors (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da4871, decided January 26, 1993).
B. Scope of Exemption from Civil Liability for Damages of an Employer Enrolled in Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance
Under Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법, hereinafter the “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”), where an injured worker who is a beneficiary receives insurance benefits under industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance”) from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (hereinafter the “Service”) for the same cause, the employer enrolled in the industrial accident insurance is exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act or other statutes to the extent of that amount. This provision is premised on the fact that insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act perform a function overlapping with civil damages in terms of compensating for loss, and provides that the employer’s civil liability for damages is exempted to the extent of the amount of insurance benefits received by the beneficiary for the same cause. Here, for the requirement of “the same cause” to be satisfied, there must exist a complementary relationship between the items of damage that are the subject of the insurance benefits and the items of damage that are the subject of the civil damages, and between the person entitled to the insurance benefit claim and the person entitled to the civil damages claim (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da13104, decided May 21, 2009, etc.).
C. Scope of the Service’s Subrogation of the Right to Claim Damages Against a Third Party
Where an industrial accident occurs due to the joint tort of an employer enrolled in industrial accident insurance and a third party, the scope within which the Service may subrogate the injured worker’s right to claim damages against the third party is limited to the amount, among the insurance benefits, corresponding to the third party’s share of liability, capped at the amount of damages owed by the third party. Accordingly, the Service cannot subrogate the injured worker as to the amount, among the insurance benefits, corresponding to the injured worker’s own share of comparative negligence, and ultimately bears that amount itself on behalf of the injured worker. Even where the injured worker claims damages against the enrolled employer or the third party on the ground of their joint tort, if the injured worker’s own negligence contributed to the occurrence of the damage, the amount of damages must be calculated by the so-called “deduction-then-comparative-negligence” method, whereby the insurance benefits are first deducted from the damage amount that is of the same nature as the insurance benefits, and comparative negligence is applied thereafter. However, where, as above, an industrial accident occurs due to joint tort and the Service subrogates the injured worker’s right to claim damages against the third party, the Service may not subrogate and exercise the right to the extent of the amount corresponding to the share of liability of the employer enrolled in industrial accident insurance, for reasons including the purpose of judicial economy in preventing circular indemnity litigation. Therefore, the Service, applying the “deduction-then-comparative-negligence” method, must first deduct from the insurance benefits the amount corresponding to the injured worker’s share of comparative negligence, and then further deduct from the damage amount to be compensated to the injured worker the amount corresponding to the enrolled employer’s share of liability, and may subrogate the injured worker’s right to claim damages against the third party only as to the remaining difference (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2021Da241618, decided March 24, 2022, etc.).
2. Judgment of the Court Below
The court below, for the reasons stated in its judgment, upheld the judgment of the first instance court, which recognized the exercise of the right of indemnity to the extent of a total of KRW 159,392,704 and delayed damages thereon—being the portion exceeding 80%, which is the Plaintiff’s own share of liability, of the amount the Plaintiff paid to the injured worker, etc., in accordance with the result of the judgment in Seoul Central District Court Case No. 2017Na42899 (hereinafter the “related damages case”) brought by the injured worker against the Plaintiff. In doing so, the court below rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments: (i) that the total industrial accident insurance benefits of KRW 238,629,450 that the injured worker had already received from the Service should be first deducted from the Defendant’s share of liability, and (ii) that, since the Service cannot seek indemnity to the extent of the amount corresponding to the share of liability of the employer enrolled in industrial accident insurance when exercising its right of indemnity against a third party, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of indemnity against the Defendant should likewise be limited in the same vein.
3. Judgment of the Supreme Court
However, the judgment of the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
A. Calculation of the Injured Worker’s Total Damages and Whether the Plaintiff Paid in Excess of Its Own Share of Liability
As set out in the legal principles above, in order for the Plaintiff, which paid mutual aid proceeds to the injured worker (the victim) pursuant to a mutual aid contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasors, to claim indemnity against the Defendant, the employer enrolled in industrial accident insurance, in accordance with the internal ratio of liability among the joint tortfeasors, the Plaintiff must have discharged more than its own share of liability, among the total damages to be compensated to the injured worker, thereby securing the joint discharge of the obligation. Here, the total damages to be compensated to the injured worker must include, in addition to the amount determined by the judgment in the related damages case, the amount corresponding to the remaining portion of the industrial accident insurance benefits paid by the Service to the injured worker, after excluding the amount corresponding to the injured worker’s own share of comparative negligence. Therefore, if the Plaintiff’s share of liability is calculated based on the total damages to be compensated to the injured worker, there is substantial room to conclude that the Plaintiff did not pay in excess of its own share of liability.
B. The Portion of the Defendant’s Liability from Which the Defendant Is Exempt from the Duty of Indemnity
Even if the Defendant owes a duty of indemnity to the Plaintiff in accordance with the internal ratio of liability, the scope thereof is limited to the Defendant’s own share of liability. According to the legal principles set out above and the record, the portion of the damages that the injured worker is to be compensated by the Defendant, the enrolled employer, pursuant to statute, corresponding to the Defendant’s share of liability for negligence, is in a complementary relationship with the corresponding portion of the industrial accident insurance benefits paid by the Service to the injured worker, in terms of the items of damage and the person entitled to the claim for damages, and there is room for it to perform an overlapping function in terms of compensating the injured worker for loss. Therefore, if the Service paid industrial accident insurance benefits to the injured worker for the same cause, the portion of those industrial accident insurance benefits corresponding to the Defendant’s share of liability for negligence must be deemed to exempt the Defendant from liability for damages or from the duty of indemnity, pursuant to Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, not only in relation to the injured worker but also in relation to the Plaintiff, who asserts a duty of indemnity based on the internal share of liability among joint tortfeasors on the ground of damages owed to the injured worker.
C. The Scope of Indemnity Against the Defendant Among the Amount the Plaintiff Paid in Discharge of Its Indemnity Obligation to the Service
Even where an industrial accident occurs due to the joint tort of the employer enrolled in industrial accident insurance and a third party, in accordance with the legal principles set out above, as to the amount, among the insurance benefits paid by the Service, corresponding to the injured worker’s own share of comparative negligence, and as to the amount, among the damages to be compensated to the injured worker, corresponding to the enrolled employer’s share of liability, the injured worker’s right to claim damages cannot be subrogated or made the subject of indemnity, and the Service alone ultimately bears these amounts. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff discharged a portion of its indemnity obligation to the Service concerning part of the industrial accident insurance benefits, the portion that the Service was originally to bear, as described above, cannot be included in an amount exceeding the Plaintiff’s internal share of liability, and likewise cannot be the subject of indemnity against the Defendant, the enrolled employer.
D. Sub-conclusion
Nevertheless, the court below, without further examining and determining whether the Plaintiff paid in excess of its internal share of liability or whether the Defendant is exempt from its share of liability, determined the Defendant’s duty of indemnity and its scope solely on the basis of the amount awarded by the judgment in the related damages case. As argued in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and by failing to conduct the necessary examination, thereby affecting the judgment.
4. Conclusion
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination, and it is so decided by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in this decision, as stated in the Order.
Justice Shin Suk-hee (Presiding Justice), Justice Noh Tae-ak (Justice in charge), Justice Seo Kyung-hwan, Justice Noh Kyung-pil