[Plaintiff, Appellee] Dongyang Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney-in-fact: Jungin Law Firm, Attorneys Hwang Ik and 7 others)
[Defendant, Appellant] Defendant
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court Decision 2004Na16792 rendered on April 28, 2005
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
[Reasoning]
1. Regarding the First Ground for Appeal
Where an industrial accident occurs due to a joint tort committed by an employee of an industrial accident insurance policyholder and a third party, a third party who has already been made to reimburse the entire amount of insurance benefits to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to a final and conclusive judgment rendered in accordance with the precedent that existed prior to being modified by the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da62322 rendered on March 21, 2002, may assert joint discharge from liability for damages arising from the joint tort and seek re-reimbursement from other joint tortfeasors, such as the industrial accident insurance policyholder, for the amount corresponding to the discharged portion of their share of liability.
The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da62322 rendered on March 21, 2002 holds that, where an industrial accident occurs due to a joint tort committed by a policyholder and a third party, if the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service could seek reimbursement of the entire amount of insurance benefits from the third party pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법), then the third party who was made to reimburse the entire amount of such benefits could again seek re-reimbursement from the policyholder, a joint tortfeasor, for the policyholder's share of liability according to the ratio of fault, and the policyholder who complied with such re-reimbursement could, by analogical application of Article 55-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, seek re-re-reimbursement from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service for the amount that was re-reimbursed, which would result in circular litigation contrary to the economy of litigation, and would ultimately amount to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service claiming an amount that it would have to return to the policyholder, such that permitting this would not be appropriate even in light of the principle of good faith; therefore, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service cannot seek reimbursement from the third party for the amount corresponding to the policyholder's ratio of fault. This, however, does not mean that a third party who has already been made to reimburse the entire amount of insurance benefits to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to a judgment rendered in accordance with the prior precedent is precluded from seeking re-reimbursement against the policyholder and others.
In the same vein, the judgment below is justified in rejecting the Defendant's argument that the Defendant cannot be held liable to satisfy the Plaintiff's claim for re-reimbursement in this case on the ground that doing so would lead to a result contrary to the economy of litigation or the principle of good faith, as held in the above en banc Decision.
2. Regarding the Second Ground for Appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff, as an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Haedong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Haedong Co."), paid insurance proceeds in accordance with a final and conclusive judgment rendered in a reimbursement suit between the Intervenor for the Defendant and Haedong Co.; it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was at fault in paying the insurance proceeds in this case, nor can the money paid to the Intervenor for the Defendant pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment be regarded as unjust enrichment without legal cause.
In the same vein, the measure taken by the court below in rejecting the Defendant's argument that the Defendant cannot be held liable to satisfy the Plaintiff's claim in this case on the ground that the Plaintiff was at fault in paying the reimbursement amount to the Intervenor for the Defendant, is justified.
3. Regarding the Third Ground for Appeal
Joint tortfeasors bear a quasi-joint and several obligation in relation to the obligee, but among themselves there exists a certain share of liability, and where one of the joint tortfeasors discharges the joint liability by paying more than his own share, he may exercise a right of reimbursement against the other joint tortfeasors in proportion to their respective shares of liability; therefore, in order for a joint tortfeasor to acquire a right of reimbursement, it is not necessarily required that he compensate the victim for the entirety of the damage, but he must compensate in excess of his own share of liability. Where an employee and a third party jointly commit a tort causing damage to a victim and thereby bear a liability for damages, the employee and the third party are in a quasi-joint and several relationship with each other as joint tortfeasors; meanwhile, since the employer's liability for damages is a substitute liability for the employee's liability for damages, the employer must also be regarded as being in a quasi-joint and several relationship with the third party. Therefore, where the employer compensates the victim for damage exceeding the employee's share of liability as determined by the ratio of liability between the employee and the third party, the employer may also exercise a right of reimbursement against the third party (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070 rendered on June 23, 1992).
According to the record, it can be seen that the deceased Non-party 1, the victim of the traffic accident in this case, was born on (date of birth 1 omitted) and was, at the time, an employee of Sammi General Special Steel Co., Ltd.; that he received medical care benefits of KRW 2,019,930 from the Intervenor for the Defendant in connection with the traffic accident in this case, and that his bereaved family received a lump-sum survivor's compensation of KRW 33,305,320 and funeral expenses of KRW 3,074,330, in addition to KRW 100,000,000 paid by the above company as damages, etc.; that Non-party 2, born on (date of birth 2 omitted), sustained injuries including traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage as a result of the traffic accident in this case, and received insurance benefits from the Intervenor for the Defendant from March 24, 1993 to March 30, 2005, consisting of temporary disability benefits of KRW 20,459,320, injury/disease pension of KRW 143,475,330, and medical care benefits of KRW 265,400,020, totaling KRW 429,334,670, and that Non-party 2 continued to receive treatment even up to the date the oral argument was concluded before the court below; and that the amount of insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff to the Intervenor for the Defendant pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment between the Intervenor for the Defendant and Haedong Co. corresponds to Non-party 1's medical care benefits, a portion of his bereaved family's lump-sum survivor's compensation and funeral expenses, and Non-party 2's medical care benefits from March 24, 1993 to February 28, 1996 and temporary disability benefits and injury/disease compensation pension from April 1, 1993 to January 31, 1996, totaling KRW 113,626,960, plus delay damages thereon.
In order for the Plaintiff, by way of subrogation of Haedong Co., to exercise a right of reimbursement against the Defendant, a joint tortfeasor in the traffic accident in this case, the Plaintiff must have compensated, out of the damages suffered by the victims, i.e., the deceased Non-party 1 and his bereaved family and Non-party 2, an amount exceeding the share of liability of Non-party 3, an employee of Haedong Co. However, according to the facts found above, the damages suffered by the deceased Non-party 1 and his bereaved family and Non-party 2 as a result of the traffic accident in this case far exceed the amount of the reimbursement that the Plaintiff paid to the Intervenor for the Defendant pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, even if the ratio of fault between the Defendant and Non-party 3 in this traffic accident is regarded as 7 to 3, as found by the court below, it is difficult to conclude that the reimbursement amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Intervenor for the Defendant constitutes compensation for damage exceeding Non-party 3's share of liability, such that the Plaintiff can seek reimbursement from the Defendant for the entirety of the amount corresponding to the Defendant's ratio of fault out of the above amount.
Nevertheless, the court below, without examining whether the Plaintiff compensated for damages exceeding the share of liability of Non-party 3, an employee of Haedong Co., out of the damages suffered by the deceased Non-party 1 and his bereaved family and Non-party 2, the victims of the traffic accident in this case, ordered the Defendant to pay the amount corresponding to the Defendant's ratio of fault out of the reimbursement amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Intervenor for the Defendant. Such determination by the court below constitutes an error of law that misapprehends the legal principles regarding the requirements for a joint tortfeasor's exercise of the right of reimbursement and fails to exhaust the examination, thereby affecting the outcome of the judgment.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination, upon the unanimous agreement of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice), Justice Kang Shin-wook (Justice in Charge), Justice Ko Hyun-chul, Justice Kim Ji-hyung