[Plaintiff, Appellee] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service
[Defendant, Appellant] ○○○ Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney: Law Firm(LLC) Jipyong, Attorney Kim Young-su and 2 others)
[Judgment Below] Seoul Central District Court Decision 2021Na34062, decided January 20, 2022
[Order]
The part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts may be found.
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor with the operation of the industrial accident compensation insurance business pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법; hereinafter the "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act"). Nonparty 1 (hereinafter the "Victim") and Nonparty 2 were employees belonging to the Mapo-gu Branch of the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association (사단법인 서울특별시옥외광고협회; hereinafter the "Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association"), which is a mandatory subscriber to industrial accident insurance. The Defendant is the comprehensive insurer of the vehicle bearing (vehicle number 1 omitted) (hereinafter the "co-riding vehicle"), with Nonparty 2 as the insured, and the comprehensive insurer of the vehicle bearing (vehicle number 2 omitted) (hereinafter the "other party's vehicle"), with Nonparty 3 as the insured (the insurance contract concerning the co-riding vehicle is hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Contract 1 of this case," and the insurance contract concerning the other party's vehicle is hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Contract 2 of this case").
B. On April 14, 2017, at around 15:10, Nonparty 2, while driving the co-riding vehicle, caused an accident (hereinafter the "accident of this case") by colliding with the other party's vehicle driven by Nonparty 3. At the time, both vehicles were speeding in excess of the speed limit rather than slowing down at an intersection where a yellow flashing signal was displayed, and the accident of this case occurred under these circumstances.
C. The Victim was seated in the front passenger seat of the co-riding vehicle at the time of the accident of this case, and sustained injuries, including cerebral hemorrhage, as a result of the accident of this case.
D. The Plaintiff recognized the accident of this case as an occupational accident and paid the Victim medical care benefits of KRW 58,210,190 and temporary disability benefits of KRW 43,322,940. If the disability compensation pension currently being paid to the Victim were converted into a lump-sum disability compensation payment, the amount thereof would be KRW 77,574,530.
E. From May 31, 2017 to October 30, 2020, the Defendant paid the Victim a total of KRW 201,887,650 for hospital treatment expenses, etc., pursuant to Insurance Contract 1 of this case. On February 7, 2020, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 58,210,190, an amount equivalent to the aforementioned medical care benefits, pursuant to Insurance Contract 2 of this case.
F. In the "Cause and Circumstances of Accident" section of the application for industrial accident medical care benefits (Exhibit A No. 2), it is stated that "[the Victim] was injured in a traffic accident that occurred while on a business trip." In the written statement of circumstances (Exhibit A No. 4) prepared by Nonparty 2, it is stated to the effect that "[the accident] occurred when a rear-end collision occurred while returning to Seoul after paying condolences at the funeral of the mother of Nonparty 4, the former head of the Mapo-gu Branch of the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association, and having lunch."
G. Meanwhile, the insurance policy terms of Insurance Contract 1 of this case provide, as a ground for exemption from liability under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II, a clause stating that "where the insured vehicle is used for the business of the user of the insured vehicle, and another employee engaged in the business of that user, who is entitled to receive disaster compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, is killed or injured" (hereinafter the "exemption clause of this case").
2. Judgment of the court below
The court below held that the Defendant, as the insurer not only of Insurance Contract 1 of this case, but also of Insurance Contract 2 of this case—to which the exemption clause of this case does not apply and which includes Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II within its coverage scope—was in a position bearing liability pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Act on Guarantee of Compensation for Loss Caused by Motor Vehicle Traffic (자동차손해배상 보장법) and Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act (상법), and that this case concerns the external liability borne by the Defendant as the insurer of Insurance Contracts 1 and 2 of this case. On this basis, after determining the ratio of negligence between the co-riding vehicle and the other party's vehicle, the court below rejected the Defendant's argument to the effect that the Plaintiff's right of indemnity concerning the portion of Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II within the amount of liability of the co-riding vehicle should be limited.
3. Judgment of the Supreme Court
A. The judgment of the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
1) Where an industrial accident occurs due to the joint tort of an insurance subscriber and a third party, in light of the principle of procedural economy aimed at preventing circular indemnity litigation and the principle of good faith, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service may not seek indemnity from the third party for the amount corresponding to the insurance subscriber's ratio of negligence. Rather, after deducting from the insurance benefit amount the portion of the damages to be compensated to the injured employee that corresponds to the insurance subscriber's ratio of negligence (provided that the amount recoverable by way of indemnity is limited to whichever is smaller between the insurance benefit amount and the damages amount; therefore, where the injured employee's damages amount is smaller than the insurance benefit amount, the portion corresponding to the insurance subscriber's ratio of negligence must be deducted from that damages amount), the Service may seek indemnity from the third party only for the remaining difference, if any (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da62322, decided March 21, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da82059, decided May 13, 2010, etc.). This legal principle applies equally where an industrial accident occurs due to the joint tort of an employee belonging to the insurance subscriber and a third party, and the insurance subscriber, as the employer of that employee, bears employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act (민법) for the resulting damages. In such a case, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service may not seek indemnity from the third party for the portion borne by the insurance subscriber corresponding to the ratio of negligence of its employee (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da220808, decided April 24, 2018).
Meanwhile, the purpose of providing the exemption clause of this case under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II of the standard motor vehicle comprehensive insurance policy terms is as follows: with respect to damages arising from an occupational accident occurring within the labor relationship between an employer and an employee, the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), which governs labor relations, provides for the employer's various compensation liabilities, while the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act establishes the industrial accident insurance system to guarantee such compensation liabilities. Accordingly, damages sustained by an injured employee due to a work-related motor vehicle accident subject to industrial accident insurance are to be compensated through industrial accident insurance, and to the extent such compensation is possible through industrial accident insurance, such damages are intended to be excluded from the scope of bodily injury liability coverage under motor vehicle insurance, which is aimed at covering liability for compensation owed to third parties (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Da2802, decided March 17, 2005). Therefore, where a motor vehicle insurance accident also constitutes an industrial accident, such that the victim is "a person entitled to receive disaster compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act"—that is, where there exists a portion of the damages to be compensated by the insurer under the motor vehicle insurance contract that may be compensated through industrial accident insurance benefits—the insurer is, absent special circumstances, exempted from liability for compensation pursuant to the exemption clause of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4429, decided September 4, 2002).
2) Examining the facts found above in light of the foregoing legal principles:
The accident of this case occurred due to the concurrent negligence of Nonparty 2, an employee belonging to the Mapo-gu Branch of the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association, and Nonparty 3, a third party. If Nonparty 2's tortious act was, in objective appearance, related to the execution of the business of the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association, its employer, then, absent any assertion or proof that the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association exercised due care in the selection and supervision of its employee, the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association bears employer's liability. In such a case, the Plaintiff may not seek indemnity from the Defendant, under Insurance Contract 2 of this case, for the portion borne by the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association corresponding to Nonparty 2's ratio of negligence. Furthermore, since the Defendant is, absent special circumstances, exempted from liability for compensation pursuant to the exemption clause of this case with respect to the portion of the damages to be compensated under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II of Insurance Contract 1 of this case that may be compensated through industrial accident insurance benefits, the Plaintiff may not seek indemnity from the Defendant for the insurance benefit amount under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II of Insurance Contract 1 of this case either.
B. Nevertheless, the court below, without examining whether the Seoul Outdoor Advertising Association bears employer's liability, determined that the Plaintiff could seek indemnity from the Defendant for the entire amount of the Victim's damages within the scope of the temporary disability benefits and the lump-sum disability compensation, excluding the amount equivalent to the medical care benefits received from the Defendant among the insurance benefits paid by the Plaintiff to the Victim, solely on the ground that the Defendant was in a position bearing liability as the insurer of both Insurance Contracts 1 and 2 of this case. Such judgment of the court below contains an error that affected the judgment, in that it failed to conduct the necessary examination and misunderstood the legal principles concerning the scope of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's exercise of the right of indemnity against third parties. The Defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.
4. Conclusion
The part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and adjudication. This Judgment is rendered pursuant to the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Eom Sang-pil (Presiding Justice), Oh Seok-jun (Justice in charge), Lee Suk-yeon