[Plaintiff, Appellant] Republic of Korea
[Defendant, Appellee] Jinheung Co., Ltd.
[Original Judgment] Seoul Civil District Court Decision 85Na572, rendered October 29, 1985
[Order]
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. In its reasoning, the original judgment found the following facts: Defendant company, an insured person under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법), leased a crane from non-party Incheon Heavy Equipment Co., Ltd. (likewise an insured person under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act). Non-party 1, a crane operator employed by the aforementioned non-party company, was engaged in operating the crane under the direction and supervision of Defendant company at Section 328 of Seoul Subway Line 3, in front of (address omitted), Gangnam-gu, Seoul. At approximately 08:50 on April 30, 1982, while operating the crane, Non-party 1 suffered an electric shock due to the negligence of Non-party 2, a worker employed by Defendant company, and sustained burns to his limbs and abdomen. The original judgment further found that Plaintiff paid Non-party 1 a total of 4,996,798 won in medical care benefits and temporary disability benefits as prescribed by law.
Based on these findings, the original judgment considered and rejected Plaintiff's argument that the accident was caused by the negligence of Non-party 2, an employee of Defendant, in the course of performing his duties; that Defendant, as the employer of Non-party 2, constituted a "third party" as provided in Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; and that, having paid the insurance benefits pursuant to paragraph (1) of the same Article, Plaintiff, in the capacity of insurer who thereby acquired the right to claim damages against Defendant held by Non-party 1, the beneficiary, sought reimbursement of the amount of insurance benefits paid. The original judgment reasoned that a "third party" as provided in Article 15 of the same Act refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship with the injured worker and who is liable to the injured worker for damages arising from a tort or otherwise; however, since Defendant company, an insured person under industrial accident compensation insurance, had leased from the non-party company the crane operated by Non-party 1, and Non-party 1 had engaged in crane operation duties under the direction and supervision of Defendant company, Non-party 1 was in the position of an employee vis-à-vis Defendant company, and therefore an industrial accident insurance relationship was established between Non-party 1 and Defendant company, such that Defendant does not constitute a "third party" as provided in Article 15 of the same Act.
2. That a "third party" as provided in Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a person who has no industrial accident insurance relationship with the injured worker and who is liable to the injured worker for damages arising from a tort or otherwise, is as the original judgment determined (see this Court's Decision 77Da1967, rendered February 14, 1978).
However, in order for an industrial accident insurance relationship to be deemed established in this case between the victim, Non-party 1, and Defendant company, an insured person under industrial accident compensation insurance, Non-party 1 would have to qualify as an employee of Defendant company. Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that, for purposes of this Act, "employee" means an employee as defined in the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법). Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, for purposes of this Act, "employee" means a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for the purpose of earning wages, regardless of the type of occupation. Article 18 of the same Act provides that, for purposes of this Act, "wages" means all money and valuables, however named—wages, salary, or otherwise—paid by the employer to the employee as remuneration for labor. Accordingly, an employee subject to the Labor Standards Act refers to a person who provides labor to an employer for the purpose of receiving money or valuables from the employer as remuneration for his own labor (see this Court's Decision 72Do334, rendered March 28, 1972). The facts found by the original judgment alone are insufficient to determine whether such a relationship existed between Non-party 1 and Defendant company.
If Non-party 1 was not in the position of providing labor directly to Defendant company for the purpose of receiving money or valuables from Defendant company as remuneration for his own labor, then even if, as found by the original judgment, he operated the heavy equipment owned by non-party Incheon Heavy Equipment Co., Ltd. and leased by Defendant company, under the direction and supervision of Defendant company, Non-party 1 could not be said to be an employee of Defendant company. Accordingly, an industrial accident insurance relationship between Defendant company and Non-party 1 could not be recognized as established, and Defendant company should be deemed to constitute a "third party" as provided in Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.
The original judgment, having found only the facts set forth in its reasoning without examining whether the aforementioned relationship of labor provision and wage receipt existed between Defendant company and Non-party 1, determined that an industrial accident insurance relationship had been established and thereby rejected Plaintiff's claim. This disposition involves errors of law in misapprehending the legal principles regarding the definition of "employee" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the meaning of "third party" under Article 15 of the same Act, as well as insufficient examination and inadequate reasoning. This constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (소송촉진등에관한특례법). Therefore, the grounds of appeal are well-founded.
3. Accordingly, the Justices unanimously agree to reverse the original judgment and remand the case for further hearing and determination, and render judgment as set forth in the Order.
Justice Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice), Justice Kang Woo-young, Justice Kim Deok-ju, Justice Oh Seong-hwan