All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2022Da228704 Decided March 9, 2023 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Legal nature of the family relief fund stipulated in Article 17(2) of the Crime Victim Protection Act [2] In a case where a victim subject to relief or his or her successor, alleging an intentional unlawful act against a criminal and an employer’s liability against an employer of the criminal, jointly filed a lawsuit claiming damages, and the court ordered the criminal and his or her employer to jointly pay compensation for damage and the employer to pay a smaller amount by applying contributory negligence only to the employer, where the part that becomes extinct as the victim subject to relief or his or her bereaved family receives a criminal injury relief fund according to the Crime Victim Protection Act (held: the obligation solely borne by the criminal, an obligor who owes a large amount) and the criminal injury relief fund does not exceed the obligation solely assumed by the criminal, an obligor who owes a large amount, whether the amount equivalent to the relief fund should be deducted only from the part solely assumed by the criminal in full (affirmative) In such a case, the nature of the obligation assumed by the criminal and his or her employer (held: a quasi-joint and several obligation in which several obligors should assume different amounts respectively) | |
