[Plaintiff, Appellee] Republic of Korea
[Defendant, Appellant] Halla Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Attorney Jeong Seung-hwa, Counsel for the Defendant
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 92Na34850 rendered on December 15, 1992
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal by the Defendant's attorney are examined.
1. As to Ground of Appeal No. 4
Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) provides: "Where the Minister of Labor has paid insurance benefits for an accident caused by the act of a third party, he shall be subrogated to the right to claim damages against the third party held by the person who received the benefits, to the extent of the amount of such benefits: Provided, That this shall not apply where two or more business owners who are insured persons divide and each conduct a single business at the same place, and an accident occurs due to the act of an employee of a business owner different from the injured employee's own business owner." The term "single business" in the above proviso means that two or more business owners who are insured persons under the Act each conduct a business falling under Article 4 of the Act, but do so at the same location and within the same risk zone for the completion of the same business (subject matter) (see this Court's Decision 94Da29225, rendered October 11, 1994). On the other hand, even where two or more insured business owners conduct their businesses at the same location, if the content of each business is not for the completion of the same business or subject matter, the degree of risk involved would ordinarily be regarded as different from each other, and thus it cannot be considered a case falling under the proviso's "case of dividing and each conducting a single business."
Therefore, the court below lawfully found the following facts: that on May 4, 1990, non-party Yeongseong Co., Ltd., a business owner insured under the aforementioned Act, was subcontracted by the Defendant to perform repair work at the Defendant's shipyard—including tightening and replacing loosened bolts on the main pillar structure used as the crane track, as indicated in the judgment, and painting corroded portions of the factory roof, among other things; that while non-party 1, an employee of the above company, was engaged in this construction work, he was struck by a crane operated by non-party 2, an employee of the Defendant, at approximately 13:05 on May 7 of the same year, and died at approximately 16:20 the following day; and that the Incheon Regional Employment and Labor Office under the Ministry of Labor, under the Plaintiff, on May 26 of the same year recognized this accident, which led to the death of non-party 1, as an occupational accident under the Act, and paid insurance benefits under the Act to non-party 3, the wife of non-party 1. Based on these findings, the court below determined that since this accident occurred due to the negligence of non-party 2 and others, who were the Defendant's employees, the Plaintiff could exercise, by subrogation of non-party 3, the right to claim damages held by non-party 3 against the Defendant, and rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff could not exercise a right of indemnity against the Defendant pursuant to the proviso of Article 15(1) of the Act. This determination is proper, and it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding the legal principles of the above provision, as argued. This ground of appeal is without merit.
2. As to Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
A. The court below found that the Plaintiff paid non-party 3 45,500,000 won as a survivor's benefit and 4,200,000 won as funeral expenses under the Act, totaling 49,700,000 won, and found that the amount of such insurance benefits fell within the scope of damages that non-party 3 would be compensated for due to this accident; the court below then determined that the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said 49,700,000 won. As to the Defendant's argument that, on May 14, 1990—before the Plaintiff paid the above insurance benefits—non-party 3 received 58,000,000 won from the above company and waived the right to claim damages against the Defendant, such that non-party 3's right to claim damages against the Defendant had already been extinguished, the court below found the following: that non-party 3 and non-party 4 (a minor, whose legal representative was her parent with parental authority, non-party 3), on that date, entered into an agreement with the above company to receive 58,000,000 won on condition that they would not raise any civil or criminal objection against the Defendant or the above company regarding this accident, and did receive the money on that date; however, at the time, non-party 3 and the above company agreed that the settlement amount would include all insurance benefits that non-party 3 was to receive from the Plaintiff, provided that the above company would first pay the entire settlement amount, and then, as the deceased's business owner, receive the insurance benefits on behalf of non-party 3 under a delegation of authority to receive such benefits, to be substituted for the settlement amount already advanced to non-party 3; and that, accordingly, the above company, having received such delegation from non-party 3, received the insurance benefits in the amount set forth above and applied them toward part of the settlement amount. In light of these findings, the court below determined that the purport of the settlement between non-party 3 and the above company was that non-party 3 waived only the portion of the right to claim damages against the above company and the Defendant arising from this accident that exceeded the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, and that there was no other evidence to find that non-party 3's entire right to claim damages against the Defendant had been extinguished, thereby rejecting the Defendant's argument. The court below also held that even if the above company and the Defendant had agreed that the above company would be responsible for any and all damages arising from the subcontracted construction work, such agreement between the Defendant and the above company could not be asserted against the Plaintiff, who exercises non-party 3's right to claim damages against the Defendant by subrogation.
B. According to the record, of the money received by non-party 3 from the above company, the amount of 45,500,000 won corresponding to the survivor's lump-sum compensation was advanced by the above company, and non-party 3 delegated the receipt of this amount to the above company pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Act and Article 32(1)(1) of its Enforcement Decree (동시행령); accordingly, it is recognized that the above company received the said amount from the Plaintiff. Therefore, non-party 3 must be deemed to have received the said 45,500,000 won from the above company not as damages, but as the survivor's lump-sum compensation under the Act (indeed, the receipt, Exhibit A No. 7-4, prepared and given by non-party 3 to the above company, states that the 58,000,000 won was received "including industrial accident compensation, etc."). Accordingly, it must be found that non-party 3 did not waive the right to claim damages against the Defendant with respect to the amount equivalent to the survivor's lump-sum compensation. If it were found that even this portion of the right to claim damages had been waived, non-party 3 would lose the right to claim the survivor's lump-sum compensation against the State (see this Court's Decision 79Da1668, rendered December 26, 1979), and thus non-party 3 would have engaged in the unreasonable act of extinguishing the right to receive the survivor's lump-sum compensation at the very moment of receiving it.
Therefore, the court below's rejection of the Defendant's above argument is proper with respect to the said 45,500,000 won portion. Furthermore, according to the provisions of Article 16 of the Act and Article 32 of its Enforcement Decree, even where a business owner has advanced payment of insurance benefits to a person entitled to receive such benefits, this does not automatically entitle the business owner to directly claim the insurance benefits from the State; rather, the business owner may only receive such benefits on behalf of the beneficiary where the beneficiary has delegated the receipt thereof. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the principle of subrogation by performance applies such that the right to claim benefits of the person entitled to receive insurance benefits is transferred to the business owner. Therefore, the argument premised on the position that, merely because the above company advanced payment to non-party 3, non-party 3's right to claim benefits was transferred to the above company, such that the Plaintiff could only seek indemnity against the Defendant by subrogating the above company, is likewise without merit.
C. However, Article 12(3) of the Act provides that funeral expenses under Article 9-8 of the Act shall be paid to the person who performs the funeral rites. According to the record in this case, in particular the statements in each of Exhibits A No. 9-6 through 9-9 cited by the court below, it is recognized that the above company, having obtained confirmation from non-party 3 that the above company had itself performed the funeral rites for non-party 1, directly claimed, as the person entitled to receive the funeral expense benefit, payment thereof from the Head of the Incheon Regional Employment and Labor Office under the Plaintiff, and received the said funeral expenses of 4,200,000 won (Article 32(1)(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act does not even list funeral expenses among the insurance benefits for which a business owner may be delegated to receive on the basis of an advance payment). Accordingly, with respect to the funeral expenses portion, the Plaintiff cannot claim damages against the Defendant by subrogation of non-party 3. Moreover, even assuming that the Plaintiff's claim includes a claim for payment of an amount equivalent to the funeral expenses against the Defendant by subrogation of the above company, the court below itself found that the Defendant, after this accident, on May 8, 1990, paid the above company 32,000,000 won in the name of damages to the bereaved family of non-party 1, and that the above company, in settling with the victim's side, agreed that if the settlement amount exceeded the said amount, the above company would be responsible for the excess amount. Therefore, the above company cannot be said to have any right to claim payment of an amount equivalent to the funeral expenses against the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot claim payment of an amount equivalent to the funeral expenses against the Defendant even by subrogation of the above company (see this Court's Decision 80Da1229, rendered February 10, 1981).
Nevertheless, the court below found that the above company had also paid the said funeral expenses to non-party 3 and, having been delegated to receive them, received them from the Plaintiff, and held that even if there was an agreement between the above company and the Defendant to the effect that indemnity could not be sought as described above, such agreement could not be asserted against the Plaintiff, who exercises non-party 3's right to claim damages against the Defendant by subrogation. This constitutes an error in the evaluation of evidence that affected the judgment, and the argument pointing out this error is with merit.
3. Conclusion
Accordingly, the portion of the judgment below ruling against the Defendant that orders payment of 4,200,000 won equivalent to the funeral expenses and the delay damages thereon (the portion ordering payment in excess of 45,500,000 won and the delay damages thereon) is reversed. As this Court finds it sufficient to render judgment on this portion of the case itself, this Court renders its own judgment as follows: since this portion of the claim is without merit, it is dismissed. As the judgment of the first instance court reaches the same conclusion as this Court and is therefore proper, the Plaintiff's appeal corresponding to this portion is dismissed, and the remainder of the Defendant's appeal, being without merit, is dismissed. As to the bearing of the total costs of litigation, Articles 89, 92, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act (민사소송법) are applied, and it is so decided as set forth in the Order below by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
[Order]
1. The portion of the judgment below ruling against the Defendant that orders payment, in excess of 45,500,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from May 27, 1990 to December 15, 1992, and at the rate of 25% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment, is reversed, and the Plaintiff's appeal corresponding to the reversed portion is dismissed.
2. The remainder of the Defendant's appeal is dismissed.
3. The total costs of litigation shall be divided into ten parts, of which nine shall be borne by the Defendant and the remainder by the Plaintiff.
Justices Ahn Yong-deuk (Presiding Justice), Cheon Gyeong-song, Ji Chang-kwon, Shin Seong-taek (Justice in Charge)