Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Deduct insurance benefits first, then apply contributory fault
Supreme Court, June 26, 2025, 2023Da297141 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(산)[업무상 재해를 당하여 산재보험금을 지급받은 재해근로자가 사업주를 상대로 잔여 손해액의 배상을 청구하는 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an injured worker who received insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act sues the subscribing employer for damages on the basis of the employer's and a third party's joint tort, and the worker's own fault contributed to the loss, how is the amount of damages calculated, and is the same method required where the injury was caused by the subscribing employer's tort alone, with no third party involved?
Holding
Where the worker's fault contributed to the loss, the portion of the benefit corresponding to the worker's share of fault falls on the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service in the end, so the employer's liability is not automatically released by the whole benefit. The claim is therefore calculated by the 'deduction before apportionment' method: deduct the benefit from the loss of the same nature, then apply contributory fault to what remains. Since the Service's final bearing of that portion is the same where the subscribing employer alone committed the tort, the same method applies in that case too.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
재해근로자에 대한 사업주의 손해배상책임이 공단이 지급한 보험급여 전액만큼 당연히 면제된다고 볼 수는 없다. 따라서 재해근로자의 손해배상청구액은 보험급여와 같은 성질의 손해액에서 먼저 보험급여를 공제한 다음 과실상계를 하는 ‘공제 후 과실상계’ 방식으로 산정하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The employer's liability for damages to the employee who suffered the industrial accident cannot be regarded as automatically exempted to the extent of the full amount of the insurance benefits paid by the Service. Accordingly, the amount of the employee's claim for damages must be calculated by the 'comparative negligence after deduction' method, i.e., by first deducting the insurance benefits from the amount of loss of the same nature as the insurance benefits and then applying comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault).
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 일실수입 상당의 손해배상청구 부분에 해당하는 8,200,000원과 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the portion, within the part where the plaintiff lost, of the claim for damages corresponding to lost income, namely 8,200,000 won and the delay damages thereon, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
산업재해보상보험법 제80조 제2항의 문언과 입법 취지, 산업재해보상보험(이하 ‘산재보험’이라 한다) 제도의 목적과 사회보장적 성격, 재해근로자(유족 등 보험급여 수급자를 포함한다)와 근로복지공단(이하 ‘공단’이라 한다) 및 불법행위자 사이의 이익형량 등을 종합하여 보면
Unofficial English translation
Upon comprehensively considering the text and legislative intent of Article 80 (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the purpose and social security character of the industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter 'industrial accident insurance') system, and the balancing of interests, among other things, among the employee who suffered the industrial accident (including the survivors and other recipients of insurance benefits), the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service (hereinafter 'the Service'), and the tortfeasor (unlawful actor),
Factors
- 산업재해보상보험법 제80조 제2항의 문언과 입법 취지
- 제도의 목적과 사회보장적 성격
- 불법행위자 사이의 이익형량 등을 종합하여 보면
- 재해근로자에 대한 사업주의 손해배상책임이 공단이 지급한 보험급여 전액만큼 당연히 면제된다고 볼 수는 없다
- 제3자의 개입 없이 산재보험 가입 사업주의 불법행위로 근로자가 산업재해를 입었고 그 손해 발생에 재해근로자의 과실이 경합된 경우 공단이 재해근로자를 위해 보험급여 중 재해근로자의 과실비율에 해당하는 금액을 종국적으로 부담하는 점은 다르지 않으므로
Unofficial English translation
• the text and legislative intent of Article 80 (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
• the purpose and social security character of the system
• upon comprehensively considering the balancing of interests among tortfeasors (unlawful actors), among other things,
• the employer's liability for damages to the employee who suffered the industrial accident cannot be regarded as automatically exempted to the extent of the full amount of the insurance benefits paid by the Service
• where the employee suffered the industrial accident due to the tort (unlawful act) of the employer insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance without the intervention of a third party and the employee's negligence contributed to the occurrence of the loss, the point that the Service ultimately bears, for the employee, the portion of the insurance benefits corresponding to the employee's percentage of fault is no different, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2022. 3. 24. 선고 2021다241618 전원합의체 판결(공2022상, 753)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2021Da241618 decided March 24, 2022 (Gong 2022 Sang, 753)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2022. 3. 24. 선고 2021다241618 전원합의체 판결(공2022상, 753)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is it decided whether a particular item of loss is of the same nature as the insurance benefit, so that the benefit must be deducted from it first?
The remand judgment will show how the deduction before apportionment method is applied to a post-accrual lost income claim of this size. Any amendment to Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or a later decision addressing when a loss is of the same nature as the benefit, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Both readings record the burden as not mentioned, so there is no difference on this axis. The enumDiffs listing of axis 4 does not match the recorded values and may be an input error.
재해근로자의 손해배상청구액은 보험급여와 같은 성질의 손해액에서 먼저 보험급여를 공제한 다음 과실상계를 하는 ‘공제 후 과실상계’ 방식으로 산정하여야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How is it decided whether a particular item of loss is of the same nature as the insurance benefit, so that the benefit must be deducted from it first?” vs Independent “What amount of lost-income damages is ultimately payable after applying deduction before comparative fault on remand?”
The primary asks how to decide whether a loss item is of the same nature as the benefit, a doctrinal classification question. The independent asks the final lost-income amount on remand, a computation question.
재해근로자에 대한 사업주의 손해배상책임이 공단이 지급한 보험급여 전액만큼 당연히 면제된다고 볼 수는 없다. 따라서 재해근로자의 손해배상청구액은 보험급여와 같은 성질의 손해액에서 먼저 보험급여를 공제한 다음 과실상계를 하는 ‘공제 후 과실상계’ 방식으로 산정하여야 한다.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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 20 October 2023 (2023Na20869), accepted that the defendant employer had failed in its duty of care and was liable in damages, but limited its liability to 70 per cent for the plaintiff worker's carelessness. It held that the 'deduction before apportionment' method governs only where a third party's tort caused the benefit to be paid, and that because the benefit here was paid on account of the subscribing employer's own tort, the plaintiff's claim could not be calculated that way. Applying apportionment before deduction, the post-accrual lost income of KRW 67,295,086, multiplied by 70 per cent, came to KRW 47,106,560, which was less than the disability benefit of KRW 54,202,500, so the lost income claim was dismissed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the method of calculating damages. Even though no third party was involved, the Service ultimately bears the portion of the benefit corresponding to the worker's share of fault, so the 'deduction before apportionment' method applies here as well, and the employer's liability is not automatically released by the whole benefit. The court below erred on that ground alone, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and thereby fell within 'a decision contrary to the precedent of the Supreme Court' under Article 3(ii) of the Small Claims Trial Act, so the part of the judgment rejecting the claim for KRW 8,200,000 in lost income and its interest was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the injured worker's fault did not contribute to the loss, since the Court reasoned from the Service's final bearing of the portion matching that fault.
- A claim for a head of loss that is not of the same nature as the insurance benefit paid, since the Court deducts the benefit only from losses of the same nature as the benefit.
- A claim outside the scope left for appeal, since the reversal here was confined to KRW 8,200,000 and its interest, the part the plaintiff had limited the appeal to.
Record verification notes
Set out the total loss for each head claimed, the benefit actually paid by the Service and its nature, and the worker's and the employer's respective shares of fault, then calculate deduction before apportionment on the same-nature heads alone. Check whether the employer's tort alone or a joint tort with a third party caused the accident, since the Court extended the same method to both. Finally confirm the appeal's own limits, because the judgment stood in every other part.
From the official text
Points at issue
산업재해보상보험법에 따라 보험급여를 받은 재해근로자가 산업재해보상보험 가입 사업주와 제3자의 공동불법행위를 원인으로 사업주를 상대로 손해배상을 청구할 때 그 손해 발생에 재해근로자의 과실이 경합된 경우, 재해근로자의 손해배상청구액을 산정하는 방식(=보험급여와 같은 성질의 손해액에서 먼저 보험급여를 공제한 다음 과실상계) 및 제3자의 개입 없이 사업주의 불법행위로 근로자가 산업재해를 입었고 그 손해 발생에 재해근로자의 과실이 경합된 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where an employee who suffered an industrial accident and received insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act claims damages from the employer on the ground of a joint tort (unlawful act) committed by the employer, who is insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, and a third party, and the employee's negligence contributed to the occurrence of the loss, the amount of the employee's claim for damages must be calculated by first deducting the insurance benefits from the amount of loss of the same nature as the insurance benefits and then applying comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault), and whether the same applies even where the employee suffered the industrial accident due to the employer's tort (unlawful act) without the intervention of a third party and the employee's negligence contributed to the occurrence of the loss (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
산업재해보상보험법 제80조 제2항의 문언과 입법 취지, 산업재해보상보험(이하 ‘산재보험’이라 한다) 제도의 목적과 사회보장적 성격, 재해근로자(유족 등 보험급여 수급자를 포함한다)와 근로복지공단(이하 ‘공단’이라 한다) 및 불법행위자 사이의 이익형량 등을 종합하여 보면, 재해근로자가 산재보험 가입 사업주와 제3자의 공동불법행위를 원인으로 가입 사업주를 상대로 손해배상을 청구하는 경우 그 손해 발생에 재해근로자의 과실이 경합된 때에는 공단이 재해근로자에게 지급한 보험급여 중 재해근로자의 과실비율에 해당하는 금액은 공단이 재해근로자를 위해 종국적으로 부담하는 것이므로, 재해근로자에 대한 사업주의 손해배상책임이 공단이 지급한 보험급여 전액만큼 당연히 면제된다고 볼 수는 없다. 따라서 재해근로자의 손해배상청구액은 보험급여와 같은 성질의 손해액에서 먼저 보험급여를 공제한 다음 과실상계를 하는 ‘공제 후 과실상계’ 방식으로 산정하여야 한다. 제3자의 개입 없이 산재보험 가입 사업주의 불법행위로 근로자가 산업재해를 입었고 그 손해 발생에 재해근로자의 과실이 경합된 경우 공단이 재해근로자를 위해 보험급여 중 재해근로자의 과실비율에 해당하는 금액을 종국적으로 부담하는 점은 다르지 않으므로, 이 경우에도 위와 같은 ‘공제 후 과실상계’ 방식으로 재해근로자의 손해배상청구액을 산정하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 일실수입 상당의 손해배상청구 부분에 해당하는 8,200,000원과 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the portion, within the part where the plaintiff lost, of the claim for damages corresponding to lost income, namely 8,200,000 won and the delay damages thereon, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
산업재해보상보험법 제80조 제2항, 민법 제393조, 제396조, 제760조, 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