2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by all the plaintiffs of the first and second instances.

The Defendant’s disposition of site pay for disability compensation annuity against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2001 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On July 11, 1989, the Plaintiff joined the non-party 2 corporation and was working as a regular manager in charge of the business. At around 15:30 on July 29, 1995, the Plaintiff suffered from the water skiing connected to the motor boat driven by the non-party 1 in order to check the aquatic skiing course planned as part of the exercise of friendship among the parties involved who engaged in the product competitive show developed by the company in the North Korean lecture in front of the Gyeong-gun, in the name of documents other than the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, in order to inspect the products competitive show developed by the company, the water skiing connected to the motor boat driven by the non-party 1, who was driven by the non-party 1, who is bound by the upper speed of the motor boat, and was faced with the right-hand open mination and crushing of the motor boat, both sides, the left-hand sniffed s on the left-hand side, the injury caused by the occupational disaster (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disaster”).

B. On October 16, 1995, the Plaintiff paid 50,000,000 won as consolation money from Nonparty 3 who represented Nonparty 1, the perpetrator, and agreed not to file all claims, including medical expenses, in relation to the instant disaster, with the amount of civil and criminal agreement on October 30 of the same month.

C. The plaintiff applied for the approval of medical care on September 12, 1995 before the conclusion of the above agreement with the victim, and the defendant applied for the approval of medical care on November 16, 1995, but the above non-approval disposition on February 15, 1996 was revoked by a ruling, and the plaintiff paid the plaintiff KRW 5,246,10 (the payment period from October 18, 195 to December 31, 1995, until December 31, 1995), KRW 0,525,890 (the payment period from July 31, 1995 to October 17, 1995), KRW 10,71,97,969, and KRW 30,50 (the payment period from October 31, 199, 196 to KRW 10,500,610,64,696,619,696,6196,65,6.

D. On October 17, 200, the Plaintiff filed a claim for a disability compensation annuity for the subsequent period on the ground that the period of the disability compensation annuity for the subsequent period was expired for the Defendant, but on February 2, 2001, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not pay it on the ground that the claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was extinguished by receiving damages from the perpetrator due to the instant accident and exempting the perpetrator from the remainder of the damage compensation liability.

E. On March 4, 1997, the Plaintiff claimed 17,851,480 won (the medical care costs from July 31, 1995 to October 18 of the same year) as the medical care costs due to the instant disaster, but filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 98Gu9515) seeking revocation on September 9, 1997 on the ground that the claim for insurance benefits was extinguished due to the same reasons as the stated in the preceding paragraph. However, the judgment became final and conclusive after the final appeal.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's property damage in the disaster of this case is 159,922,852 won [=39,807,130 won 】 102,410 won [=1,502,410 won (“131,502,410 won” from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 200), while the sum of the disability pension to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant until the remaining life of the plaintiff x 146,279,14 x 279,945 x 295 days [the amount obtained by deducting the above 120,00,000 won from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 200] x 146, 279, 2914 x 95 days x 295 days x 295 days x 25 days x 94,2945 days x 25 days x 94.25 days 5 days x 94.25 days 5 days 】

B. Defendant’s assertion

Even if the amount of the Plaintiff’s property loss in the disaster of this case is considered to be KRW 159,922,852, as the Plaintiff alleged above, the amount shall be calculated on the basis of average wage of KRW 99,922.85 at the time of calculating the amount of damages (i.e., the amount equivalent to KRW 159,922,852 ± average wage of the above average wage of KRW 99,922.85). On the other hand, the amount of disability pension to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff should be calculated on the basis of the amount of lump-sum disability compensation in accordance with the purport of the latter part of Article 48(2) of the Act. If comparing both, the amount of disability pension to be paid by the Defendant is merely the amount of 1,474 days of the above average wage, and the Plaintiff’

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts recognized;

(1) The amount of damages equivalent to the lost income that the Plaintiff could have received from the perpetrator due to the instant accident is KRW 288,95,873 as set out below, while the total amount of the insurance benefits that the Defendant could have received from the Defendant would be KRW 147,290,702 on the basis of a lump-sum payment (=average wage amounting to KRW 99,925.85 x 1,474 x KRW 1,474).

(2) Calculation of lost import damages

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Income:

From the occurrence of the instant accident to the age of 55: 2,97,775 won per month (=average wage of 99,925.85 won x 30 days)

60 years of age thereafter:

701,052 won per month (=31,866 won for urban daily wage x 22 days per month)

(2) Negligence offsetting.

The plaintiff knew that the non-party 1 was involved in the operation of the motor boat, but he was involved in the water skiing in the motor boat operated by him, and the ratio of its consideration is reasonable to set at 30%.

[Ground of recognition] Facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 15-1 and 2

(b)Calculation;

【Contributory Negligence】 30%

412,851,248 won (=383,409,800 won +29,441,448 won) ¡¿ 70% = 288,995,873 won

【288,995,873 won of lost import loss】

B. Determination

(1) Article 48 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act prohibits double payment of insurance benefits under the same Act and damages caused by the same cause. In the event that the obligation to pay insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act arises due to a tort committed by a third party, it is reasonable to distinguish the amount of insurance benefits from the amount of the insurance benefits to be paid to the extent that the beneficiary is subject to double transfer of the insurance benefits from the third party and the third party’s liability is prevented, in light of the legislative intent and contents of Article 54(2) of the same Act, which aim at preventing the third party from evading liability and securing insurance finances, it is reasonable to distinguish the amount of the insurance benefits from the amount of the insurance benefits to the extent that the beneficiary is entitled to receive certain amount of money related to his own property damages from the third party or to waive or exempt the remainder of the claim without receiving it from the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du9810, Aug. 18, 202).

(2) However, in a case where the Plaintiff is entitled to receive insurance benefits under the Act and damages under the Civil Act, etc. due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff received KRW 120,00,000 in relation to his/her property damages and renounced the remainder of the claim, and the actual amount of lost income damages that the Plaintiff could have received from Nonparty 1 was 28,95,873, while the amount of insurance benefits that the Plaintiff could have received is 147,290,702, based on the lump-sum payment, and thus, the amount of insurance benefits that the Plaintiff could have received, exceeds the amount of insurance benefits. Therefore, the Defendant was exempted from all the obligation to pay disability insurance benefits under the instant case. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on this,

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)