[Plaintiff, Appellant] Republic of Korea, legal representative Minister of Justice Kim Chi-yeol, litigation performers Kim Hak-jun, Kang Hyeon-gwon
[Defendant, Appellee] Kim Hyeon-yeo
[Original Judgment]
Seoul High Court, Judgment of August 30, 1979, Case No. 79Na615
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the record, it is clear that the Plaintiff admits the fact that, with respect to damages arising from the death of the deceased ○○○ from charcoal briquette gas poisoning in a guest room of the Songjuk Inn operated by the Defendant, a settlement in the amount of KRW 200,000 was reached between the representative of the bereaved family of the deceased (to be precise, the deceased's younger brother Im Heon-o) and the Defendant, and that the said amount was received; however, the Plaintiff disputed that the content of the settled amount pertained only to consolation money for the bereaved family and did not concern the deceased's lost earnings. The argument, as raised in the grounds of appeal, that the settlement has no effect whatsoever with respect to damages arising from the death of the deceased because it was not made with the persons holding the right to claim damages, such as the deceased's wife and children, is a fact that was not asserted in the fact-finding court below. Therefore, raising new facts and materials at this stage to attack the findings of the court below cannot constitute a proper ground of appeal.
While it is true, as argued in the grounds of appeal, that Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법시행령) and Article 25 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) set forth the scope of bereaved family members entitled to receive benefits, since the Plaintiff admitted in the fact-finding court below that a settlement had been reached with the bereaved family, it cannot now newly raise the point that such person was not the statutory beneficiary in order to criticize the findings of the court below.
Furthermore, according to Exhibit A No. 5 (Agreement), the authenticity of which is not disputed, it is stated that the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the representative of the bereaved family of the deceased as a condolence payment (excluding costs incident to the transport of the body), and that the representative of the bereaved family agreed not to pursue any civil or criminal liability against the Defendant in the future. In light of this, the judgment below, which found that the said agreement constituted a settlement concerning the entirety of the damages other than the costs incident to the transport of the body, is deemed to be justified.
Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that where the Commissioner of the Labor Office has paid insurance benefits for an accident caused by the act of a third party, the Commissioner shall be subrogated, to the extent of the amount of such benefits, to the right of the person who received the benefits to claim damages against the third party. However, this provision merely means that, on the premise that the beneficiary has a right to claim damages against the third party, the right to claim damages is subrogated to the extent of the benefits paid.
Since the beneficiary's right to claim damages against the tortfeasor is an ordinary claim arising from tort, the existence of such a provision does not in any way affect the nature of the said right to claim damages; accordingly, the beneficiary may, in accordance with the principle of private autonomy, release the third party from all or part of the obligation to compensate for damages owed to the beneficiary by the third party (see this Court's Judgment of February 14, 1978, Case No. 76Da2119).
Therefore, inasmuch as an agreement was reached between the representative of the bereaved family of the deceased ○○○, who was a person covered by industrial accident compensation insurance, and the Defendant, and the portion of the damages arising from the death of ○○○ exceeding KRW 200,000 (excluding the cost of transporting the body) was thereby released, the judgment of the court below holding that the Plaintiff's claim in this case, based on the right of subrogation, is without merit, is also deemed to be justified. The argument to the contrary in the grounds of appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party; the opinions of the Justices involved being unanimous, judgment is rendered as stated in the Order.
Justice Kim Yong-cheol (Presiding Justice), Min Mun-gi, Lee Il-gyu, Jeong Tae-won