[손해배상(자)][집35(2)민,125;공1987.8.1.(805),1139]
Calculation of lost profits where a person entitled to receive bereaved family's compensation under the Industrial Fire Compensation Insurance Act has received it;
If a person having the right to receive bereaved family's compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has received it, the person having the right to receive it shall be exempted from the liability for damages under the Civil Act within the limit of such amount, and the person having the right to receive the property of the deceased shall jointly inherit, under the Civil Act, the remainder after the person having the right to receive the compensation
Articles 763, 109, Articles 9-6 and 11 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Supreme Court en banc Decision 68Da2178 Decided February 4, 1969, 75Da1098 Decided December 27, 197
Plaintiff 1 and three others
Korea Telecommunication Corporation (Attorney Hwang Chang-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 86Na59 delivered on October 17, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
If a person who has the right to receive bereaved family's compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act receives it, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for damages under the Civil Act within the limit of the amount. The deceased's property heir jointly succeeds from the lost profit which the deceased can obtain for the future, the remainder after deducting the bereaved family's compensation already received by the person who has the right to receive it, as prescribed by the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Da2178, Feb. 4, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 75Da1098, Dec. 27, 197); and with the same purport, the court below held that the deceased's wife and children who were the deceased's wife and children due to the traffic accident of this case were entitled to receive the bereaved family's compensation under the same Act after deducting the bereaved family's compensation amount under the above Act received by the deceased non-party who was the wife, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of bereaved family's compensation and the order of inheritance.
The issue is that: (a) the bereaved family’s compensation under the above Act has the authority to receive the bereaved family’s compensation; (b) the deduction of the bereaved family’s compensation which was already paid on behalf of the co-inheritors is not a deduction from the deceased’s actual income; (c) it is not a deduction from the deceased’s actual income; and (d) it is unreasonable to deduct the income from the inherited portion of the property of the heir who received the bereaved family’s compensation from the inherited portion of the property of the heir who received the bereaved family’s compensation; and (e) it is unfair to deduct it from the inherited portion of the property of the heir who actually received the bereaved family’s compensation. However, if the above assertion is not the recipient of the bereaved family’s compensation, it would result in a double compensation for
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)