Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 98다37491 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/9373 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 98다37491

Claim for Reimbursement (구상금)구상금

Decided2000. 03. 10. Court대법원Case remanded for retrial (파기환송) — the lower court's ruling, which had improperly calculated the scope of the subrogation claim, was overturned and sent back for reconsideration in line with the Supreme Court's legal standard.
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 case establishes the legal principle governing how much the Government Employees Pension Service (공무원연금관리공단) can recover through a subrogation claim (구상권) against a tortfeasor, after paying survivor's compensation benefits (유족보상금) to the family of a civil servant killed by a third party's wrongful act. The Supreme Court held that the scope of reimbursement is limited to pecuniary (property) damages, excluding consolation money (위자료, solatium for emotional distress), and that the Pension Service only acquires the actual damage claim of the surviving family member who received the benefit, up to the amount paid.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA civil servant died due to a third party's wrongful act, and the Pension Service paid survivor's compensation (유족보상금) to the family.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that the Pension Service's reimbursement claim against the tortfeasor covers only pecuniary damages actually paid to the survivor who received the benefit, excluding any consolation money (위자료).
  • LessonWhen a public pension fund seeks reimbursement after compensating a bereaved family, its recovery is strictly limited to the actual pecuniary loss covered and cannot extend to emotional distress damages or exceed the benefit amount actually disbursed.
Issues
  • The legal nature of survivor's compensation (유족보상금) and whether consolation money (위자료) should be included within the scope of a subrogation claim (구상권)
  • The proper scope and limits of the claim that the Government Employees Pension Service (공무원연금관리공단) may recover from a third-party tortfeasor
Key reasoning

Survivor's compensation (유족보상금) is a benefit designed to compensate for loss, and by its nature corresponds to compensation for passive (lost income-type) pecuniary damages arising from a tortious act, rather than emotional or non-pecuniary harm. Therefore, when the Pension Service exercises its subrogation right (구상권) against the person responsible for the death, consolation money (위자료) must be excluded from the amount it can claim back. Furthermore, the Pension Service does not acquire a general right against the tortfeasor; it only steps into the shoes of the specific survivor who actually received the benefit payment, and its recovery is capped at the amount it actually paid out to that survivor.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

Among the survivor benefits under Article 42, Item 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법), the survivor compensation benefit, unlike other survivor benefits such as the survivor pension under the same item—which is paid to guarantee the livelihood of the survivors regardless of whether the death resulted from an official illness or injury—is a benefit intended to compensate for the loss suffered by a public official who died from an official illness or injury, or by his or her survivors. In that it is paid to compensate for the loss or damage arising from the official illness or injury, it should be regarded as a benefit of the same kind as compensation for pecuniary damages (passive damages) arising from a tort. Accordingly, where the grounds for the benefit arose from the act of a third party, the claim over which the Government Employees Pension Service may exercise subrogation should be construed as excluding the claim for consolation money (solatium). Furthermore, the term "person entitled to benefits" under Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the same Act means, in accordance with its literal text, a person who has actually received benefits from the Government Employees Pension Service or a local government. Therefore, where a survivor compensation benefit has been paid under the Public Officials Pension Act due to the act of a third party, the Service or local government that paid such benefit acquires, absent special circumstances, only the entitled person's claim for damages against the third party, limited to the extent of the survivor compensation benefit paid to the entitled person.

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,898 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Government Employees Pension Service (Attorney Lee Se-jak, Counsel for the Plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellee] Dongbu Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Kim Ki-jin, Attorney at Law, Garam Law Firm, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Judgment Below] Seoul District Court Judgment rendered June 24, 1998, Case No. 98Na5622

[Order]

The part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to a panel of the Seoul District Court.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Ground No. 1

Among the survivor's benefits under Article 42, Subparagraph 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법), the survivor's compensation, unlike other survivor's benefits such as the survivor's pension under the same subparagraph—which are paid to guarantee the livelihood of the survivors regardless of whether the death resulted from an official disease or injury—is a benefit intended to compensate the public official or the survivors for the loss suffered as a result of an official disease or injury, and is paid to indemnify the loss or damage caused by such official disease or injury. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view it as a benefit of the same kind as compensation for passive damage arising from a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da36873, delivered November 19, 1998). Therefore, where the cause of the benefit arose from an act of a third party, the claim right that the Government Employees Pension Service may recover by way of subrogation should be deemed to exclude the right to claim consolation money (solatium). Furthermore, since the term "beneficiary" under Article 33(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act, as its language indicates, means a person who has actually received benefits from the Government Employees Pension Service or a local government, where a public officials pension service or local government has paid survivor's compensation under the Public Officials Pension Act due to an act of a third party, absent special circumstances, it acquires only the beneficiary's right to claim damages against the third party, limited to the amount of survivor's compensation paid to the beneficiary (see Supreme Court Decision 86Daka2948, delivered July 21, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 95Da18772, delivered June 27, 1997, etc.).

The judgment below, which is to the same effect, is justified, and it cannot be said that there is any error of misapprehension of the law as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Ground No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the scope of the right of indemnity in this case, the court below calculated the lost income of the deceased Nonparty 1 as KRW 31,472,008, and then determined that, of the survivor's compensation of KRW 63,507,600 paid by the Plaintiff to the deceased's wife, Nonparty 2, the amount was limited to KRW 8,583,274, which corresponds to Nonparty 2's statutory inheritance share of the deceased's lost income.

However, upon examination of the record (the brief dated August 12, 1997, at pages 68-69 of the record), it is clear that the Plaintiff also asserted, as part of the deceased's claim for damages against the Defendant, the lost retirement pension and lost retirement allowance, but the court below made no determination whatsoever on this point. If so, the judgment below contains an error of omission of judgment and insufficient deliberation that affected the judgment, and thus the argument in this part of the grounds of appeal pointing out this error is well-founded.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below, and it is so decided as per the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices involved.

Justice Lee Im-su (Presiding Justice), Song Jin-hoon, Yoon Jae-sik (Justice in charge)

【판결요지】

공무원연금법 제42조 제3호 소정의 유족급여 중 유족보상금은 공무상 질병이나 부상 여부와는 무관하게 유족들의 생활보장을 위하여 지급되는 같은 호 소정의 유족연금 등 다른 유족급여와는 달리 공무상 질병 또는 부상으로 인하여 사망한 공무원 또는 그 유족들에 대한 손실보상을 목적으로 하는 급여로서, 공무상 질병 또는 부상으로 인한 손실 또는 손해를 전보하기 위하여 지급된다는 점에서 불법행위로 인한 소극적 손해의 배상과 같은 종류의 급여라고 봄이 상당하므로, 급여의 사유가 제3자의 행위로 인하여 발생한 경우 공무원연금관리공단이 구상할 수 있는 대상채권에는 위자료청구권이 제외된다고 보아야 할 것이고, 같은 법 제33조 제2항 소정의 '수급권자'라 함은 그 문언대로 현실로 공무원연금관리공단 또는 지방자치단체로부터 급여를 받은 자를 의미하므로 제3자의 행위로 인하여 공무원연금법에 의하여 유족보상금을 지급한 공단 또는 지방자치단체는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 수급권자에게 지급된 유족보상금의 한도 내에서 수급권자의 제3자에 대한 손해배상채권만을 취득한다.

【참조조문】

공무원연금법 제33조 제1항, 제2항, 제42조 제3호

【참조판례】

대법원 1987. 7. 21. 선고 86다카2948 판결(공1987, 1382), 대법원 1997. 6. 27. 선고 95다18772 판결(공1997하, 2294), 대법원 1998. 11. 19. 선고 97다36873 전원합의체 판결(공1998하, 2865)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,451자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 공무원연금관리공단 (소송대리인 변호사 이세작)

【피고, 피상고인】 동부화재해상보험 주식회사 (소송대리인 법무법인 가람 담당변호사 김기진)

【원심판결】 서울지법 1998. 6. 24. 선고 98나5622 판결

【주 문】

원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울지방법원 본원 합의부에 환송한다.

【이 유】상고이유를 본다.

1. 제1점에 대하여

공무원연금법 제42조 제3호 소정의 유족급여 중 유족보상금은 공무상 질병이나 부상 여부와는 무관하게 유족들의 생활보장을 위하여 지급되는 같은 호 소정의 유족연금 등 다른 유족급여와는 달리 공무상 질병 또는 부상으로 인하여 사망한 공무원 또는 그 유족들에 대한 손실보상을 목적으로 하는 급여로서, 공무상 질병 또는 부상으로 인한 손실 또는 손해를 전보하기 위하여 지급된다는 점에서 불법행위로 인한 소극적 손해의 배상과 같은 종류의 급여라고 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이므로(대법원 1998. 11. 19. 선고 97다36873 전원합의체 판결 참조), 급여의 사유가 제3자의 행위로 인하여 발생한 경우 공무원연금관리공단이 구상할 수 있는 대상채권에는 위자료청구권이 제외된다고 보아야 할 것이다. 그리고 공무원연금법 제33조 제2항 소정의 '수급권자'라 함은 그 문언대로 현실로 공무원연금관리공단 또는 지방자치단체로부터 급여를 받은 자를 의미하므로 제3자의 행위로 인하여 공무원연금법에 의하여 유족보상금을 지급한 공단 또는 지방자치단체는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 수급권자에게 지급된 유족보상금의 한도 내에서 수급권자의 제3자에 대한 손해배상채권만을 취득한다고 할 것이다(대법원 1987. 7. 21. 선고 86다카2948 판결, 1997. 6. 27. 선고 95다18772 판결 등 참조).

같은 취지의 원심판결은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유로 지적하는 바와 같은 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

2. 제2점에 대하여

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 이 사건 구상권의 범위에 관하여 망 소외 1의 일실수입을 금 31,472,008원으로 산정한 다음 원고가 위 망인의 처 소외 2에게 지급한 유족보상금 63,507,600원 중 위 망인의 일실수입 중 소외 2의 법정상속분인 금 8,583,274원으로 제한된다고 판단하였다.

그러나 기록(1997. 8. 12. 자 준비서면, 기록 68∼69면)에 비추어 살펴보면, 원고는 망인의 피고에 대한 손해배상채권으로 일실퇴직연금과 일실퇴직수당도 주장하였는데 원심은 이에 관하여 아무런 판단을 하지 않고 있음이 명백한바, 그렇다면 원심판결에는 판결에 영향을 미친 판단유탈 및 심리미진의 위법이 있다 할 것이므로 이 점을 지적하는 이 부분 상고이유의 주장은 이유 있다 할 것이다.

3. 그러므로 원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 원심법원에 환송하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이임수(재판장) 송진훈 윤재식(주심)

Related statutes

공무원연금법 제42조 제3호공무원연금법 제33조 제2항

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
95다18772 · 대법원 1997-06-27
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)
#2
79다1668 · 대법원 1979-12-26
Claim for Reimbursement (구상금)
#3
86다카2948 · 대법원 1987-07-21
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)
#4
84나841 · 서울고법 1984-07-31
약정금청구사건
#5
2000다45419 · 대법원 2002-04-12
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)

Cases citing this decision

2000다45419 · 대법원 2002-04-12
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)
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)