2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. Workers A of Epia A, during work on April 25, 2009, suffering from stress disorder and depression due to occupational accidents.

B. From March 5, 2010 to April 13, 2010, A received treatment from Samsung Seoul Hospital, and the Plaintiff paid to the said hospital KRW 128,100,00 of the Plaintiff’s charge, excluding the Plaintiff’s charge, out of the medical expenses of A.

C. Meanwhile, on July 23, 2010, the Defendant decided to approve additional medical care regarding the above medical expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim of this case asserted by the Defendant is the claimant for the settlement of accounts under Article 90(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”). Pursuant to Article 112(1)5 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the extinctive prescription is three years, and the prescription has already been completed.

B. Article 42(1) that applies mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 90(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act applies first to the Defendant only where the Plaintiff paid the insurance benefits to the Defendant. This case does not constitute a claim for the settlement of accounts under Article 90(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, since a worker who first paid the insurance benefits files an application for medical care benefits to the Defendant later.

Therefore, in the case of this case, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant should be summarized as the principle of return of unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Code, which is a general provision, so the period of extinctive prescription is ten years as stipulated in Article 116 of the Civil Code

Even if the three-year extinctive prescription is applied as alleged by the Defendant, the starting point is July 23, 2010, which is the date on which the Defendant’s additional medical care benefit was approved, and in this regard, the Plaintiff filed a claim for settlement of accounts to the Defendant on July 9, 2013 and suspended the prescription, so the three-year prescription has not yet expired.

In addition, the reason why the plaintiff cannot exercise his right before the addition of the medical care benefit is approved by the defendant.