Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Claimant's fault assessed overall in joint tort, not required in quasi-joint several obligations
Supreme Court, July 28, 2022, 2017Da16747 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)·손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where independent debts arising from separate causes stand in quasi-joint several obligations rather than as a joint tort, must the creditor's fault still be assessed overall against all debtors, and when may an appellate court review the trial court's finding of fault or its ratio?
Holding
Not necessarily. Because joint tort liability is pursued for the tort the offenders committed together, a court assessing the victim's fault evaluates it overall against all of them, even where each offender's fault ratio differs. In quasi-joint several obligations arising from separate causes that overall assessment is not required; in this case, where neither defendant was the plaintiff's assistant in performance nor in unity of status or social life with the plaintiff, no defendant's fault could be taken as the plaintiff's fault against the other. A finding of fault or a ratio of reduction or limitation belongs to the exclusive authority of the trial court unless it is manifestly unreasonable on principles of equity.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 경우까지 과실상계를 할 때 반드시 채권자의 과실을 채무자 전원에 대하여 전체적으로 평가하여야 하는 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Even in such a case, when comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault) is applied, it is not necessarily required that the creditor's fault be assessed as a whole with respect to all debtors.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고(반소원고) 씨제이대한통운 주식회사, 피고 대련중공기중집단 유한공사가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeals shall be borne by the defendant (counter-plaintiff) CJ Logistics Corporation and the defendant Dalian Heavy Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법원이 피해자의 과실을 들어 과실상계를 함에 있어서는 피해자의 공동불법행위자 각인에 대한 과실비율이 서로 다르더라도 피해자의 과실을 공동불법행위자 각인에 대한 과실로 개별적으로 평가하지 않고 그들 전원에 대한 과실로 전체적으로 평가하는 것이 원칙이다
Unofficial English translation
Where a court applies comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault) by relying on the victim's fault, the principle is that, even if the victim's ratios of fault differ as to each joint tortfeasor, the victim's fault is not assessed individually as fault toward each joint tortfeasor but is assessed as a whole as fault toward all of them
Factors
- 피해자의 공동불법행위자 각인에 대한 과실비율이 서로 다르더라도
- 서로 별개의 원인으로 발생한 독립된 채무가 동일한 경제적 목적을 가지고 있고
- 서로 중첩되는 부분에 관하여 한쪽의 채무가 변제 등으로 소멸하면 다른 쪽의 채무도 소멸하는 관계에 있기 때문에
- 그것이 형평의 원칙에 비추어 현저하게 불합리하다고 인정되지 않는 한
Unofficial English translation
• Even if the victim's ratios of fault differ as to each joint tortfeasor,
• independent obligations arising from separate causes share the same economic purpose, and
• with respect to the overlapping portion, if one obligation is extinguished by payment or the like, the other obligation is also extinguished, and
• unless it is recognized to be manifestly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1997. 4. 11. 선고 97다3118 판결(공1997상, 1444)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 97Da3118 decided April 11, 1997 (Gong 1997 Sang, 1444)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1997. 4. 11. 선고 97다3118 판결(공1997상, 1444), 대법원 2000. 9. 8. 선고 99다48245 판결(공2000하, 2074), 대법원 2009. 3. 26. 선고 2006다47677 판결(공2009상, 528)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In quasi-joint several obligations, what circumstances beyond being the plaintiff's assistant in performance or in unity of status or social life with the plaintiff would allow one obligor's fault to be taken as the plaintiff's fault against another obligor?
A later decision recognising another route by which one obligor's conduct counts against the creditor, or one reviewing a trial court's ratio on equity grounds, would require this entry to be read again. The same is true of any amendment to Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act on joint tort liability and the liability of joint obligors.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The official text does not name the court below or its judgment number. From the reasons, the court below held that the collapse of the boom of a dock crane the plaintiff had bought from Dalian and leased to CJ Logistics was caused together by Dalian's fault in making the crane and CJ Logistics' fault in managing and operating it, and that the two debts, Dalian's non-performance or defect liability and CJ Logistics' tort or lease liability, stood in quasi-joint several obligations. It held that neither defendant was an assistant in the plaintiff's performance or in unity of status or social life with the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had not been involved in operating the crane, so neither defendant's fault could be taken as the plaintiff's fault against the other, while CJ Logistics' liability alone was reduced to 70 per cent for the plaintiff's breach of its duty of care as lessor.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that limiting only CJ Logistics' liability to 70 per cent by fault apportionment, while leaving Dalian's liability unrestricted for want of any separate ground of reduction or limitation, was right, and that the grounds of appeal raised no misreading of the law on a lessor's duties, no failure to examine whether reduction or limitation applied, no error in the ratio and no contradiction. All appeals were dismissed by the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim in which the defendants' liability rests on a joint tort, so that the victim's fault is assessed overall against all of them.
- A defendant who is the plaintiff's assistant in performance or in unity of status or social life with the plaintiff, since then that defendant's fault may be taken as the plaintiff's fault.
- A trial court's finding of fault or ratio that is manifestly unreasonable on principles of equity, since then it does not fall within exclusive authority.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the two appeals joined in this judgment, Supreme Court Decision 2017Da16747 and 2017Da16754 of 28 July 2022. Fix the legal basis of each defendant's obligation and ask whether the claim is a joint tort claim, since the overall assessment turns on that alone. Then look for the reduction or limitation grounds specific to each obligor, because the Court left Dalian's liability uncut for want of any, and test the ratio against the whole record, remembering that the trial court keeps it unless it is manifestly unjust.
From the official text
Points at issue
법원이 과실상계를 함에 있어서 피해자의 공동불법행위자 각인에 대한 과실비율이 서로 다른 경우, 피해자의 과실을 평가하는 방법 / 공동불법행위자의 관계는 아니지만 부진정연대채무 관계가 인정되는 경우, 과실상계를 할 때 반드시 채권자의 과실을 채무자 전원에 대하여 전체적으로 평가하여야 하는지 여부(소극) / 손해배상사건에서 과실상계 또는 책임제한에 관한 사실인정이나 비율을 정하는 것이 사실심의 전권사항인지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
When a court applies comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault) and the victim's ratios of fault differ as to each joint tortfeasor, the method of assessing the victim's fault / Where the relationship is not that of joint tortfeasors but an improper joint and several liability is recognized, whether, in applying comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault), the creditor's fault must necessarily be assessed as a whole with respect to all debtors (negative) / Whether the findings of fact or the determination of the ratio concerning comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault) or limitation of liability in a damages action falls within the exclusive province of the court of fact (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
공동불법행위책임은 가해자 각 개인의 행위에 대하여 개별적으로 그로 인한 손해를 구하는 것이 아니라 그 가해자들이 공동으로 가한 불법행위에 대하여 그 책임을 추궁하는 것으로, 법원이 피해자의 과실을 들어 과실상계를 함에 있어서는 피해자의 공동불법행위자 각인에 대한 과실비율이 서로 다르더라도 피해자의 과실을 공동불법행위자 각인에 대한 과실로 개별적으로 평가하지 않고 그들 전원에 대한 과실로 전체적으로 평가하는 것이 원칙이다. 그런데 공동불법행위자의 관계는 아니지만 서로 별개의 원인으로 발생한 독립된 채무가 동일한 경제적 목적을 가지고 있고 서로 중첩되는 부분에 관하여 한쪽의 채무가 변제 등으로 소멸하면 다른 쪽의 채무도 소멸하는 관계에 있기 때문에 부진정연대채무 관계가 인정되는 경우가 있다. 이러한 경우까지 과실상계를 할 때 반드시 채권자의 과실을 채무자 전원에 대하여 전체적으로 평가하여야 하는 것은 아니다. 그리고 손해배상사건에서 과실상계나 손해부담의 공평을 기하기 위한 책임제한에 관한 사실인정이나 그 비율을 정하는 것은 그것이 형평의 원칙에 비추어 현저하게 불합리하다고 인정되지 않는 한 사실심의 전권사항에 속한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고(반소원고) 씨제이대한통운 주식회사, 피고 대련중공기중집단 유한공사가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeals shall be borne by the defendant (counter-plaintiff) CJ Logistics Corporation and the defendant Dalian Heavy Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Provisions referred to
민법 제393조, 제413조, 제750조, 제763조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger