[Plaintiff, Appellant] Republic of Korea
[Defendant, Appellee] Kyeongdong Cargo Motor Vehicle Co., Ltd. (경동화물자동차주식회사)
[Judgment Below] Daegu High Court Decision 89Na1033 delivered on September 28, 1989
[Order]
1. The part of the judgment below against which the Plaintiff lost, to the extent of the additional payment ordered below, is reversed.
The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,643,070, together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from April 22, 1988 to September 28, 1989, and at the rate of 25% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment.
2. The remainder of the Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
3. The total litigation costs for the reversed portion shall be borne by the Defendant, and the appeal costs for the dismissed portion shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
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 has contributed to the occurrence of the damage so that comparative negligence setoff must be applied, the comparative negligence setoff must first be applied to the calculated amount of damages, and only thereafter should the insurance benefits be deducted therefrom; comparative negligence setoff may not be applied again to the insurance benefits 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 88Daka5041 delivered on April 25, 1988). However, since the State subrogates to the victim's right to claim damages against the third party, its right of indemnity may not exceed the scope of that right to claim damages.
According to the judgment below, the court below interpreted the law as follows: since the Defendant company was relieved of its obligation to pay an amount equivalent to the medical care benefits and temporary disability benefits paid by the Plaintiff to the injured worker in this case, the Plaintiff may exercise, by subrogation, the right to claim damages within the limit of the said insurance benefits, after deducting therefrom the portion corresponding to the negligence ratio of the victim, Nonparty 1 (except for part of the temporary disability benefits, as will be discussed below), pursuant to Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and held that the Defendant company is obligated to comply with the Plaintiff's claim for indemnity by subrogation.
The court below found that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 25,300,920 as medical care benefits and KRW 8,182,420 as temporary disability benefits to Nonparty 1; meanwhile, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit for damages arising from this accident against the Defendant company, and in Seoul High Court Decision 87Na5429 delivered on May 4, 1988 (hereinafter "the prior judgment"), the lost earnings of Nonparty 1 after the accident were calculated as KRW 51,448,236, future medical expenses as KRW 13,490,610, and nursing care expenses as KRW 3,187,200, totaling KRW 68,126,046; after applying a 50% comparative negligence setoff for Nonparty 1's own negligence contributing to the occurrence of the accident, the property damage to be compensated by the Defendant company was determined to be KRW 34,063,023, from which the temporary disability benefits of KRW 4,896,280 paid by the Plaintiff to Nonparty 1 were deducted, and judgment was rendered ordering payment of the remaining KRW 29,166,743; and this judgment became final on June 1, 1988;
and determined that, of the above respective benefit amounts, the portion to be borne by the Defendant company amounts to KRW 19,189,810 (temporary disability benefits of KRW 4,896,280 + medical care benefits of KRW 12,650,460 + temporary disability benefits of KRW 1,643,070), which is the sum of the full amount of KRW 4,896,280 in temporary disability benefits that had already been fully deducted in the prior judgment, and KRW 14,293,530 (KRW 25,300,920 x 50/100 + KRW 3,286,140 x 50/100), which is the remaining amount after applying comparative negligence setoff, as discussed above, for Nonparty 1's negligence ratio, to the medical care benefits of KRW 25,300,920 and KRW 3,286,140 (KRW 8,182,420 - KRW 4,896,280) of the temporary disability benefits.
In the end, the judgment below, by making a legal interpretation that comparative negligence setoff may also be applied to the insurance benefit amounts to be deducted as described above, made an interpretation contrary to this Court's precedents concerning the scope of the right of indemnity under Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, thereby committing an illegality falling under Article 11(1)(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (소송촉진등에관한특례법).
Furthermore, examining whether the limit of the Plaintiff's insurance benefits exceeds the scope of Nonparty 1's right to claim damages against the Defendant company, first, with respect to the temporary disability benefits, the lost earnings amount recognized in the prior judgment is KRW 25,724,118 (KRW 51,448,236 x 50/100), and the temporary disability benefits paid by the Plaintiff are KRW 8,182,420, which does not exceed the scope of the said lost earnings amount; therefore, the Plaintiff may subrogate the entire amount of the temporary disability benefits. However, the judgment below accepted only KRW 6,539,350 (KRW 4,896,280 + KRW 3,286,140 x 50/100), which is less than that amount; therefore, the rejection, in the part of the judgment below against which the Plaintiff lost, of KRW 1,643,070 (KRW 8,182,420 - KRW 6,539,350) relating to the temporary disability benefits was unlawful, and the argument on this point is well-founded.
Next, with respect to the medical care benefits, the medical expenses and nursing care expenses recognized in the prior judgment amount to KRW 8,338,635 [(KRW 13,490,610 + KRW 3,187,200) x 50/100], while the medical care benefits paid by the Plaintiff are KRW 25,300,920; therefore, the amount that the Plaintiff may subrogate is limited to the amount of medical expenses and nursing care expenses recognized in the prior judgment, and indemnity by subrogation cannot be sought for the medical care benefits exceeding that amount.
However, since the amount of indemnity relating to the medical care benefits recognized in the judgment below is KRW 12,650,460 (KRW 25,300,920 x 50/100), the portion exceeding the above recognized scope of indemnity would be unlawful; however, in this case where only the Plaintiff has appealed, there is no choice but to maintain it as is; therefore, the argument on this point is without merit.
Therefore, the part of the judgment below against which the Plaintiff lost relating to the temporary disability benefits shall be reversed. As this case is one in which the facts established by the court below are sufficient for this Court to render its own judgment, for the reasons stated above, the part of the judgment below against which the Plaintiff lost, to the extent of the additional payment ordered below, is reversed, and it is ordered that the Defendant pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,643,070 together with damages for delay thereon at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act (민법) from April 22, 1988, the day following the last payment of temporary disability benefits, to September 28, 1989, the date of the judgment below, and at the rate of 25% per annum as prescribed by Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the date of full payment; meanwhile, the remainder of the Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as without merit; and as to the burden of the total litigation costs for the reversed portion and the appeal costs, they shall each be borne by the respective losing party; the opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous, judgment is rendered as stated in the Order.
Justice Lee Hoi-chang (Presiding Justice), Justice Bae Seok, Justice Kim Sang-won, Justice Kim Ju-han