[Plaintiff, Appellant] Republic of Korea
[Defendant, Appellee] Samjo Transportation Co., Ltd., Attorney Kim In-gyu, Litigation Counsel
[Judgment Below] Daegu High Court Decision 87Na911 rendered on January 19, 1988
[Order]
The part of the judgment below concerning the Plaintiff's losing portion with respect to temporary disability benefits and disability benefits is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The Plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal with respect to the dismissed portion shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Where a victim who has received insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) files a claim for damages against a third party, and the victim's own negligence is a concurrent cause of the occurrence of the damage, so that comparative negligence must be applied, the comparative negligence deduction must first be applied to the calculated amount of damages, and thereafter the insurance benefits must be deducted therefrom (see this Court's Decisions 80Da3277 rendered on June 9, 1981; 73Da337 rendered on October 23, 1973, etc.), and comparative negligence may not be applied a second time to the insurance benefits that are so deducted. Therefore, the scope of the State's right of indemnity against the third party under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall also be the full amount of the insurance benefits paid. If this were not done, and it were held that the State could seek indemnity only for the amount remaining after applying comparative negligence a second time to the amount of the insurance benefits, this would bring about the unjust result that, with respect to the portion of the benefits corresponding to the victim's proportion of negligence, the third party would be relieved of liability for compensation at the expense of the State.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in judging that the Plaintiff could seek indemnity from the Defendant only for the amount obtained by applying comparative negligence a second time to the insurance benefits paid to the victim, after having applied comparative negligence to the victim's total amount of lost income damages. This constitutes a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the scope of the State's right of indemnity under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which affected the outcome of the judgment, and this falls under the grounds for reversal set forth in Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings (소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법).
The argument pointing this out is also well-founded.
However, according to the judgment below, the court below made the error of, while treating the scope of the Plaintiff's right of indemnity as being based on the victim's claim against the Defendant for damages for lost income, nonetheless partially granting the Plaintiff's claim exercising the right of subrogation also with respect to medical care benefits, which constitute a different subject matter of litigation from the aforementioned claim; however, since the Defendant did not appeal against this point, the Plaintiff's appeal on this point is ultimately without merit.
Therefore, the part of the judgment below concerning the Plaintiff's losing portion with respect to temporary disability benefits and disability benefits is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below; the Plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed; and the costs of the appeal with respect to the dismissed portion shall be borne by the Plaintiff. It is so decided by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Ahn U-man (Presiding Justice), Kim Deok-ju, Yun Gwan, Bae Man-woon