beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.26 2017구합1902

산재보험 부당이득징수결정 처분 취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting unjust enrichment of KRW 348,989,250 against the Plaintiff on March 25, 2016.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 21, 1996, the Plaintiff was sent to the hospital and was diagnosed for cerebrovascular.

(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)

On January 29, 197, the Plaintiff’s spouse B revealed the Plaintiff’s affiliation and circumstances leading up to the hospital, and filed a claim for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, such as medical care benefits, with the Defendant, to the effect that “the Plaintiff, as an employee of C, was complaining of a serious number of the two cases during which he/she was trying to walked and operate the airport Dong-si Truck (F) at the airport in Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, and was sent back to the hospital.”

C. Accordingly, the Defendant approved the medical care, and paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 898,736,880 from around that time to March 2016 as medical care benefits.

Since then, the defendant made a false report on the plaintiff's worker status, driving qualification, accident circumstance, etc. with the result of the investigation into the accident of this case with the third party's information, and determined that the plaintiff received 898,736,880 won in total as follows as insurance benefits, etc.

Separate suspended benefits: 23,262,650 137,815,450 294,178,090 86,034,040 269,402,090 88,0402,090,560 898,736,80

E. On March 25, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to collect 348,989,250 won (i.e., unjust enrichment collection amounting to KRW 259,228,480, including insurance benefits, and KRW 89,760,770) by calculating the double of the amount received during the period of extinctive prescription as the amount to be collected.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence No. 9, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is, at the time of the instant accident, a worker C, who was engaged in the business of transporting steel plates, etc. with 17.5 tons of cargo vehicles, while carrying the instant accident.