[손해배상][집15(2)민,184]
Relationship between the State Compensation Act and the Pension for Public Officials
When considering the relationship between this Act and the Public Officials Pension Act, the former intends to compensate the victim for the total damage caused by an accident, while the latter seeks to compensate the victim in accordance with the purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the same Act, but if the same accident overlaps with the compensation for the victim under the above two Acts, it is possible to find out that the legal principle guaranteeing the victim's double benefit as stipulated in the above two Acts is not the legal principle guaranteeing the victim's double benefit as stipulated in the above two Acts, and therefore the latter is justified.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff 1 and six others
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1934 delivered on April 7, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1934 delivered on April 7, 1967
All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.
In light of the records and records, the non-party 1, the victim at the time of the accident, after considering the evidence adopted by the original judgment, acknowledged that the non-party 1, the victim, was the victim, in order to connect the vehicle to the vehicle to the vehicle according to his own new name, and that the non-party 2, the perpetrator, the traffic department affiliated with the traffic department, who had been driving the vehicle, went to the vehicle without a stop signal, and there is no reason to suspect that there was an error in the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence against the non-party 3's rejection of the part of the testimony, etc. by the non-party 3, the non-party 1 was lawfully rejected, but the above non-party 2 was the negligence of the non-party 2, on the premise that the accident was caused by the non-party 1's failure to stop and continued to stop the vehicle. The non-party 1's negligence was the fault of the non-party 1, which was the result of the accident.
The second ground for appeal is examined.
Although the original judgment did not have any explicit provision like Article 87 of the Labor Standards Act in deducting the bereaved family subsidy paid under the Public Officials Pension Act without any explicit provision from the amount of compensation under the State Compensation Act, it cannot be said that it was correct that the court rendered a decision that the deduction should be justified in light of the opinion in the case of the case of 6Da1227 decided October 18, 1966 concerning the interpretation of Article 87 of the Labor Standards Act. However, when considering the relationship with the State Compensation Act and the Public Officials Pension Act, the latter seeks to compensate the victim for all damages caused by the electronic accident. However, the latter tried to compensate the victim according to the purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the same Act. However, it can be said that the legal principle guaranteeing the victim's double interest as stipulated in each of the above two Acts exists in the same accident. Accordingly, there is no reason to argue that the measures that the plaintiffs deducted the amount of compensation for survivors already received from the amount of compensation, that is, the measures that the plaintiffs would have been legitimate.
Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong and Kimchi-galle