Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 95다48483 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/8463 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 95다48483

Damages Claim (Traffic Accident) (손해배상(자))손해배상(자)

Decided1996. 08. 23. Court대법원Reversed and remanded (파기환송) — ruling in favor of the bereaved family's position that survivor's pension should not offset tort damages
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

This Supreme Court (대법원) precedent established the principle that when a public official dies in a traffic accident while in active service, the tortfeasor's compensation liability to the bereaved family cannot be reduced by the amount of survivor's pension (유족연금) paid under the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법). Since the survivor's pension serves a different policy purpose from tort damages, the family may receive both without offset. The lower court erred in law by deducting the survivor's pension from the damages award, and the case was reversed and remanded.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA public official died in a traffic accident caused by a third party while still in active service.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that the survivor's pension paid to the family cannot be deducted from the tortfeasor's damages liability, reversing the lower court's decision.
  • LessonPublic pension benefits and tort damages serve separate purposes and can be claimed independently, so victims' families should not have their compensation reduced by pension payments.
Issues
  • The relationship between survivor's pension (유족연금) under the Public Officials Pension Act and tort damages compensation
  • Whether survivor's pension amounts should be deducted from damages when a public official dies due to a third party's tortious act
Key reasoning

The survivor's pension under the Public Officials Pension Act is designed to stabilize the livelihood and improve the welfare of public officials and their families, which is a fundamentally different purpose from tort damages compensation. Because the Government Employees Pension Service does not acquire a subrogated right to claim damages against the third-party tortfeasor upon paying the survivor's pension, there is no legal basis to deduct the pension amount from the damages owed by the tortfeasor. Therefore, allowing both the survivor's pension and full tort damages to be paid separately does not constitute double recovery, and the lower court's deduction of the pension amount from the damages was a misapplication of law.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

The survivor pension under Article 42 Item 3 (a), Article 56, and Article 57 of the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법) is paid for the purpose of contributing to the stability of livelihood and the improvement of welfare of public officials and their survivors by providing appropriate benefits in the event of the death of a public official; its purport and purpose differ from those of compensating for damages suffered by the public official or the survivors due to the public official's death. Moreover, in light of the purport of the relevant provisions, such as Article 33, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same Act and Article 27, Paragraph 1, Item 2, and Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (공무원연금법시행령), even if the survivors of a public official who was entitled to a retirement pension and who died due to a cause attributable to a third party received a survivor pension from the Public Officials Pension Service, it cannot be said that the Public Officials Pension Service thereby acquires the right to claim damages that the person entitled to the benefit holds against the third party. Therefore, the fact that a survivor pension under the Public Officials Pension Act has been paid does not mean that the amount of such survivor pension should be deducted from the amount of damages to be compensated by the third party.

Full text (English, AI translation) 2,933 chars

[Plaintiffs, Appellants]

[Defendant, Appellee] Dongyang Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

[Original Judgment] Jeonju District Court Judgment 95Na1579, decided September 28, 1995

[Order]

The part of the original judgment against the Plaintiffs concerning passive damages (lost income) is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Jeonju District Court.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The survivor's pension prescribed in Article 42, Subparagraph 3, Item (a), Article 56, and Article 57 of the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법) is paid for the purpose of contributing to the stabilization of livelihood and improvement of welfare of public officials and their survivors by providing appropriate benefits upon the death of a public official. Not only does this system differ in its purpose and objective from compensating for damages suffered by the public official or the survivors due to the public official's death, but also, in light of the purport of the relevant provisions such as Article 33, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same Act, and Article 27, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, and Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even where a public official entitled to a retirement pension dies due to a cause attributable to a third party and the survivors receive a survivor's pension from the Government Employees Pension Service, it cannot be said that the Service thereby acquires the right to claim damages that the pension recipient holds against the third party. Therefore, the fact that a survivor's pension under the Public Officials Pension Act has been paid does not mean that the amount of such survivor's pension should be deducted from the amount of damages to be compensated by the third party (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 69Da289, delivered September 29, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 91Da28955, delivered November 8, 1991).

Nevertheless, in calculating the amount of passive damages that the Defendant, as the insurer of the accident vehicle, must compensate to the Plaintiffs, who are the survivors of the deceased, arising from the death of the non-party, who was working as a police officer, in this traffic accident, the court below deducted the amount of the survivor's pension already paid from the deceased's passive damages. It is clear that such action by the court below constitutes an error affecting the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the survivor's pension under the Public Officials Pension Act.

Therefore, the part of the original judgment against the Plaintiffs concerning passive damages is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-deuk (Presiding Justice), Cheon Gyeong-song, Ji Chang-gwon, Shin Seong-taek (Justice in charge)

【판결요지】

공무원연금법 제42조 제3호 (가)목, 제56조, 제57조에 정한 유족연금은 공무원의 사망에 대하여 적절한 급여를 실시함으로써 공무원 및 그 유족의 생활안정과 복리향상에 기여함을 목적으로 하여 지급되는 것으로서, 공무원의 사망으로 인하여 그 공무원이나 유족이 입은 손해를 배상하는 것과는 그 제도의 취지와 목적을 달리하는 것일 뿐 아니라, 같은 법 제33조 제2, 3항과 같은법시행령 제27조 제1항 제2호, 제28조 제1항 등 관계 규정의 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 퇴직연금을 받을 권리가 있는 공무원이 제3자의 책임 있는 사유로 인하여 사망한 경우 그 유족이 공무원연금관리공단으로부터 유족연금을 지급 받았다고 하더라도, 수급권자가 제3자에 대하여 가지는 손해배상청구권을 위 공단이 취득하게 된다고 할 수도 없으므로, 공무원연금법상의 유족연금이 지급되었다고 하여 그 유족연금액을 제3자가 배상하여야 할 손해액에서 공제할 것이 아니다.

【참조조문】

민법 제393조, 제763조, 공무원연금법 제33조, 제56조, 공무원연금법시행령 제27조 제1항, 제28조 제1항

【참조판례】

대법원 1970. 9. 29. 선고 69다289 전원합의체 판결(집18-3, 민86), 대법원 1991. 11. 8. 선고 91다28955 판결(공1992, 82), 대법원 1994. 5. 10. 선고 93다57346 판결(공1994상, 1659)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,109자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고,상고인】

【피고,피상고인】 동양화재해상보험 주식회사

【원심판결】 전주지법 1995. 9. 28. 선고 95나1579 판결

【주문】

원심판결 중 소극적 손해에 관한 원고들 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.

【이유】 상고이유를 본다.

공무원연금법 제42조 제3호 (가)목, 제56조, 제57조에 정한 유족연금은 공무원의 사망에 대하여 적절한 급여를 실시함으로써 공무원 및 그 유족의 생활안정과 복리향상에 기여함을 목적으로 하여 지급되는 것으로서, 공무원의 사망으로 인하여 그 공무원이나 유족이 입은 손해를 배상하는 것과는 그 제도의 취지와 목적을 달리하는 것일 뿐 아니라, 같은 법 제33조 제2, 3항과 같은법시행령 제27조 제1항 제2호, 제28조 제1항 등 관계 규정의 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 퇴직연금을 받을 권리가 있는 공무원이 제3자의 책임 있는 사유로 인하여 사망한 경우 그 유족이 공무원연금관리공단으로부터 유족연금을 지급 받았다고 하더라도, 수급권자가 제3자에 대하여 가지는 손해배상청구권을 위 공단이 취득하게 된다고 할 수도 없으므로, 공무원연금법상의 유족연금이 지급되었다고 하여 그 유족연금액을 제3자가 배상하여야 할 손해액에서 공제할 것이 아니다 ( 대법원 1970. 9. 29. 선고 69다289 전원합의체 판결, 1991. 11. 8. 선고 91다28955 판결 각 참조).

그럼에도 원심은, 경찰관으로 근무중이던 소외인이 이 사건 교통사고로 사망함으로써 사고 차량의 보험자인 피고가 망인의 유족인 원고들에게 배상하여야 할 소극적 손해액을 산정하면서 망인의 소극적 손해액에서 이미 지급된 유족연금액을 공제하였는바, 위와 같은 원심의 조치는 공무원연금법상의 유족연금에 관한 법리를 오해함으로써 판결에 영향을 미친 위법을 범한 것임이 분명하다.

그러므로 원심판결 중 소극적 손해에 관한 원고들 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 원심법원에 환송하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 안용득(재판장) 천경송 지창권 신성택(주심)

Related statutes

공무원연금법 제42조 제3호공무원연금법 제56조공무원연금법 제57조공무원연금법 제33조공무원연금법시행령 제27조공무원연금법시행령 제28조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
93다57346 · 대법원 1994-05-10
Claim for Damages (Motor Vehicle Accident) (손해배상(자))
#2
2007다54481 · 대법원 2007-12-13
Damages (Motor Vehicle)
#3
98다50340 · 대법원 2000-09-26
Damages (Motor Vehicle)
#4
2006나78215 · 서울고등법원 2007-07-05
Damages (Motor Vehicle)
#5
68다2445 · 대법원 1969-03-25
Damages

Cases citing this decision

98다58023 · 대법원 2000-05-12
Claim for Reimbursement (구상금)

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)