2. The Defendant’s decision on May 4, 2010 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On July 25, 1982, when the Plaintiff served as a maintenance engineer belonging to the State Council, the Plaintiff took a bridge to another employee at the waiting room for driving technicians, and was diagnosed by slovashitis, slovashitis, slovashitis, slovashitis, etc., and was treated as a slovashosis in a slovash, slovashosis, etc.

B. After the treatment, the Plaintiff continued to provide pains on the right upper part and the slot pipe, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on December 26, 1983 by the △△ University Hospital on the two sides, and was under the diagnosis on January 6, 1984 at the same hospital, and was discharged on February 4, 1984 and received treatment by March 1984 after he was discharged from the hospital on February 4, 1984.

C. After that, the Plaintiff applied for medical care as an injury or disease and obtained the approval on October 14, 1985, and applied for disability benefits to the Defendant on October 10, 2003. However, on October 23, 2003, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay disability benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right-hand Bridge disability grade falls under class 7, but the three-year extinctive prescription has expired from the end of March 1984, which is the date of the completion of medical care.

D. Although the plaintiff filed an administrative suit seeking revocation of the above disposition, the plaintiff was sentenced to the plaintiff's failure suit as Busan District Court 2005Gudan474 on the ground that the plaintiff's right to claim disability benefits has expired, and the above judgment became final and conclusive by the dismissal of appeal on April 13, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18766 on the ground that the plaintiff's right to claim disability benefits has expired.

E. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained approval of additional medical care on the ground that it is necessary to refund the bloodless dystyposis and mathitis on the left-hand left-hand side from the Defendant, and closed the treatment on April 14, 2010, and applied for disability benefits to the Defendant on April 23, 2010.

F. On May 4, 2010, the Defendant rendered the disposition of disability compensation annuity corresponding to Grade 6, if the Plaintiff’s disability grade of the left-hand bridge falls under Class 7, and if the Plaintiff’s disability grade of the existing right-hand bridge falls under Class 8 subparagraph 7, and the Plaintiff’s disability grade is adjusted. However, as long as the period corresponding to the number of payment days for lump-sum disability compensation for class 8 of the existing right-hand bridge whose prescription has expired pursuant to Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act falls under the number of payment days for lump-sum disability compensation for class 8 of the disability grade of the existing right-hand bridge, from May 1, 2010 to 1,102 from May 1, 2010 to 4, 495 (the number of days of disability grade 8th degree of the disability grade for the right-hand bridge)/164 (the number of days newly determined after the completion of treatment on April 14, 2010).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) As long as the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits against the Plaintiff’s right-hand bridge terminates by prescription, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits on the right-hand bridge should be deemed to have already been paid. As such, if the Plaintiff’s disability grade is adjusted by additional medical care and the Plaintiff’s disability grade is paid, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits on the right-hand bridge’s right-hand bridge is lawful.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides for the prevention of double payment, and that the disposition of this case, which decided to pay a disability compensation annuity as much as the number of days, was unlawful since the Plaintiff did not receive disability benefits for the existing disability.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Under Article 57 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 53(2) and 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a person who received lump-sum disability compensation benefits before and after receiving additional medical care claims a disability compensation annuity corresponding to the changed disability grade, the disability compensation annuity corresponding to the changed disability grade shall be paid from the following month of the month in which the date when the injury was cured after additional medical care, and the provision that a disability compensation annuity should be paid for a certain period corresponding to the number of days paid for lump-sum disability compensation benefits already paid after additional medical care is intended to prevent such unreasonable consequences, given that if a person who received disability benefits due to occupational accidents receives the full disability compensation annuity corresponding to the higher disability grade on the ground that the disability grade higher after additional medical care, the legislative purport is to prevent such unreasonable consequences.

Therefore, in a case where a person who received an existing disability benefit has been judged again after the completion of medical treatment due to additional medical care and the grade has been adjusted upward, the difference between the previous disability benefit and the previous disability benefit can be received as disability benefit. However, if a person who did not receive disability benefit due to an occupational accident and claimed disability benefit according to the grade of disability adjusted upward after additional medical care, even if disability benefit was not deducted due to the aggravation of the existing disability after additional medical care, the disability benefit according to the previous disability grade does not occur even if disability benefit pursuant to the existing disability grade was not deducted, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13057, Sept. 25, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2007Nu32466, Jul. 8, 2008).

2) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret the provision of Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act that the same can apply as it is in the case where the existing claim for disability benefits is extinguished due to the completion of prescription.

(1) If a right to claim disability benefits of a person who suffered disability caused by an occupational accident terminates due to the expiration of the prescription period, the relevant employee is not entitled to disability benefits. Therefore, even if disability benefits are paid in full according to the grade of disability adjusted upward after additional medical care, such overlapping payment does not occur.

② If an obligor has repaid the obligor with knowledge of the completion of prescription after the lapse of prescription, it would be effective as waiver of the benefit of prescription, and if the obligor has repaid the obligor without knowledge of the completion of prescription, it would be non-payment (see Article 744 of the Civil Act), but this non-payment is not possible (see Articles 744 of the Civil Act). As such, given that a certain amount of benefit is paid in duplicate or a claim for benefit is paid after the lapse of prescription, the same cannot be assessed legally. Thus, there is no ground to expand the “the lump-sum disability compensation benefits already paid” under Article 58(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to “the lump-sum disability compensation benefits whose claim is extinguished due to the expiration of prescription”.

③ Even in such cases, if disability benefits corresponding to the existing disability grade are deducted, a person with at least two disabilities may suffer more disadvantages due to a higher grade of the disability grade (e.g., 242 days if the Plaintiff falling under class VI selects lump-sum disability compensation benefits other than disability compensation annuities (e.g., 737 days for lump-sum disability compensation in class VI - 495 days for class VIII lump-sum disability compensation benefits on the existing right-hand bridge), and thus, if disability benefits overlap, a person with at least two disabilities may suffer less disability than that of the left-hand bridge (as 8th 495 days for lump-sum disability compensation), the purport of the provision is to raise the disability grade.

3) Therefore, by applying Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the Plaintiff, the instant disposition that the Defendant paid disability compensation annuities to the Plaintiff for the period corresponding to the number of days of payment of lump-sum disability compensation benefits to class 8 on the existing right-hand bridge’s disability grade, and that the Defendant paid disability compensation annuities corresponding to class 6 on May 7, 2013 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so it is revoked and the disposition of this case is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)