[2] In a case where an employee who suffered from an occupational accident in a closed mine dies from an occupational accident after closure or retirement, whether his/her heir succeeds to the entitlement to the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under Article 41 (3) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (affirmative)

[2] In full view of the contents of Article 39-3(1) of the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4754 of Mar. 24, 1994); Articles 41(3), 42(1), and 42(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14092 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same), and the legislative purpose of the disaster compensation benefits paid as part of the expenses for countermeasures against mine closure, in a case where a worker who suffered from an occupational accident dies from an occupational accident after the mine closure and retirement, the entitlement to the lump sum survivors’ compensation benefits equivalent to the lump sum survivors’ compensation benefits under Article 41(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act shall be inherited by his heir in accordance with the provisions on inheritance under the Civil Act.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) From December 4, 1990 to April 30, 1993, the deceased non-party (hereinafter “the deceased”) worked as a vegetable portion at the Taeduk Mining Center (hereinafter “the instant mining center”). The instant mining center was closed on September 18, 1993.

2) Around October 1991, the Deceased was diagnosed as “mal disease Type 1/1”, and around October 2005, the Deceased was determined as “mal disease type 1/2, ca, and tbb”. Around that time, the Deceased died on May 4, 2006 while receiving medical care.

3) On May 26, 2006, the Plaintiff, a spouse of the Deceased, received 54,403,640 won, an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under Article 43(2) and [Attachment Table 2] of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) as the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits upon the Plaintiff’s choice, and received 54,403,640 won, which is the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits (hereinafter “instant lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits”), and received the remainder as the monthly survivors’ compensation benefits.

4) On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the payment of disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits of this case as the mine closure countermeasure expenses under Article 41(3)5 (hereinafter “instant provision”) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14092, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same). However, the Defendant did not comply with the payment.

5) On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits of this case. The Plaintiff initially asserted that he/she was entitled to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, as “beneficiary of lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits” under the same Article. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that he/she did not have any right to the Plaintiff regarding his/her shares of the deceased’s children among “the entitlement to disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits,” and the Plaintiff claimed that he/she did not have any right to the Plaintiff’s shares of the deceased’s children among “the entitlement to disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits”.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether “the entitlement to disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits set forth in the instant provision ought to be jointly inherited by the spouse and children of the retired employee who died pursuant to the provisions on inheritance under the Civil Act (Article 100), or whether the provisions on the beneficiaries of survivors’ benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act (Article 4 subparag. 3, 43-2, and 43-4) should be applied mutatis mutandis to the case where the retired employee died due to an occupational accident as at the time of the death of the retired employee, and whether the said employee ought to be deemed to be solely acquired by his/her spouse, who

2. Relevant provisions and legal principles

A. Article 39-3(1) of the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4754, Mar. 24, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides that when a coal mining business operator of a mine subject to the payment of the expenses for countermeasures against mine closure completes the registration of extinction of the relevant mining right, mining concession right, or continuing operation right, the coal industry rationalization business entity shall pay the retirement workers, coal mining business operators, etc. of the mine in question, the actual consolation money ( Subparagraph 1), the expenses for the relocation, disposal, etc. of mining facilities ( Subparagraph 2), the expenses for the prevention of mining damage in the closed mine ( Subparagraph 3), and other expenses for countermeasures against mine closure ( Subparagraph 4) as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

As a result of delegation, Article 41(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act provides that "other mine closure countermeasure expenses" shall be "living stabilization expenses (Article 1), subsidies for directors and job-seeking activities (Article 2), special compensation (Article 3), children's school expenses (Article 4), disaster compensation expenses (Article 5), forest recovery expenses (Article 6), and occupational training expenses (Article 41(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (Article 42-2(1) or special training expenses (Article 39-3(2) of the Act shall be paid to the retired worker for the same amount as lump-sum disability compensation benefits under Article 9-5(1) or Article 9-3(1) of the Act, regardless of the period from the date determined by the Committee to the date of the closure of a mine, and the disability grade of the retired worker has not been determined as of the date of the closure of a mine or the period of the disaster. In such cases, the amount of accident compensation benefits paid shall be the amount of lump-sum disability compensation benefits as prescribed in Article 9(1)."

In addition, Article 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act provides in Paragraph (1) that "the subject of the payment of mine closure countermeasure expenses under Article 39-3 (1) 1 and 4 of the Act shall be the person who has served for not less than three months in the mine concerned as of the date of application for confirmation under Article 42-2 (1)" as the title that "the subject of the payment of mine closure countermeasure expenses" is "the person who has served for not less than three months in the mine concerned as of the date of application for confirmation under Article 42-2 (1)." In paragraph (2) of Article 39-3 (1) of the Act, the expenses for the prevention of mining damage under Article 39-3 (1) 3 of the Act shall be paid to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor

B. As part of the mine closure countermeasure expenses, the disaster compensation benefits paid to workers who suffered from occupational accidents in the closed mine have the nature of a subsidy to continue coal mines without economic feasibility deemed desirable for the balanced development of the national economy, and to be additionally paid to retired workers who will suffer from special difficulties such as occupational change due to the disasters in the mine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu5046, Dec. 23, 1998; 98Du12598, Jan. 26, 1999; 2001Du9592, Mar. 29, 2002). The industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, which is ordinary accident compensation, are different from the purpose and nature of the system, cannot be subject to adjustment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu5046, Dec. 23, 1998; 2001Du9592, Mar. 29, 2002).

3. A beneficiary of the lump-sum survivors' compensation equivalent to the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under this case;

In full view of the contents of relevant provisions and the legislative purpose of the accident compensation benefits paid as part of the closure of a mine, in cases where an employee who suffered from an occupational accident in the closed mine dies from an occupational accident after closure of the mine or retirement, the entitlement to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits under the provisions of this case shall be deemed inherited by his/her heir pursuant to the provisions

A. The instant provision provides that “disaster consolation money that is paid to .............., in the latter part, it provides that “in this case, the amount of disaster consolation money shall be the same as that of ..........” Thus, the first sentence provides for “amount of disaster consolation money” for “persons meeting the requirements for payment of the medical specialist.”

The main text of the instant provision explicitly states that “disaster consolation benefits paid to a person whose disability grade has been determined as of the date of closure of a mine or a person whose disability grade has not been determined as of the date of closure of a disaster” is eligible for disaster consolation benefits.

The latter part of the instant provision provides that, in cases where a retired worker is eligible for disaster compensation benefits under the main sentence of the instant provision due to an occupational accident at the time of the closure of a mine, the amount equivalent to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits shall be paid if the disability grade is determined due to such occupational accident, and if the worker dies due to such occupational accident, the amount equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits shall be paid. This provision provides that “the same amount as the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits or lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits,” in order to facilitate the computation of the amount of accident compensation benefits, shall not be deemed to be prescribed as the requirement for

B. In examining the coal industry as a whole, the provisions of the former coal industry, coal mining business operators, Mayors/Do Governors, and the bereaved family members of retired workers are not stipulated. While Article 39-3(1) of the former Coal Industry Act provides that “retirement workers, coal mining business operators, etc.” is a person eligible for the expenses for countermeasures against mine closure under Article 39-3(1) of the former Coal Industry Act, “maids, etc.” is merely an expression referring to the mining damage prevention expenses (No. 3), the Mayor/Do Governor, or the Minister of the Korea Forest Service who receives forest restoration expenses (No. 4), and it is difficult to view that it includes the bereaved family members of retired workers. In particular, Article 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act provides that “The subject of the payment of disaster compensation benefits under Article 39-3(1)1 and 4(d) of the Act shall be a person who has served for at least three months in the mine concerned, it is clear that the retired workers themselves is a beneficiary

C. The provisions of the Civil Act, which are the general law regarding the inheritance of property rights, may apply to disaster consolation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ lump-sum survivors’ benefits as prescribed in the instant provision. After the retirement worker’s death, the co-inheritors may exercise their right corresponding to their respective shares, and if necessary, the entitlement to disaster consolation benefits may be reverted to a specific heir through the division of inherited property among co-inheritors (see Supreme Court Order 2014SS122, May 4, 2016). Since the scope, priority, and the period of extinctive prescription, etc. of beneficiaries may directly affect the subject and possibility of exercising the right, insofar as the legislators do not intentionally provide for specific provisions in order to achieve the purpose of special discipline under the law directly based on the law, the court should adopt the general law and apply the provisions of other Acts by analogy to the legal relationship.

D. As seen earlier, disaster consolation benefits under the Coal Industry Act and the bereaved family’s benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) are different from the purport and nature of the system. Disaster consolation benefits under the Coal Industry Act are not general social security system but special consolation benefits of a special nature, which are paid as part of mine closure countermeasure expenses pursuant to the coal industry rationalization policy. As regards workers suffering from occupational accidents, protection and support under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act should be basically provided, but among those workers who lose their workplace due to the closure of coal industry in accordance with the State’s coal industry rationalization policy, they should be paid subsidies and consolation benefits under the Coal Industry Act, separate from insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act are focused on the protection of workers suffering from industrial accident and their bereaved family members, while the financial resources are borne by employers and the State, while the mine closure countermeasure expenses include not only the support for the coal mining business operators who lose income sources due to the mine closure, but also the financial resources are borne by the State in whole. In addition, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act explicitly prescribes the right and priority of the bereaved family members, while the coal industry Act stipulates the rights of the bereaved family members as only the person entitled to the mine closure countermeasure expenses, but does not include the provisions on the rights and scope

E. In applying mutatis mutandis the provision on the beneficiary of bereaved family benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, even if the requirements for the payment of disaster compensation benefits that the employee who suffered from occupational accidents in the closed mine meet the requirements for the payment of survivors’ benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act may result in unfair consequences as to whether the bereaved family member satisfies the requirements for the payment of survivors’ benefits under the same Act. In particular, according to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010, Article 91-4(4) and Article 63 of the same Act provides that the beneficiary of the pneumoconiosis survivors’ benefits shall be paid only to the bereaved family member whose livelihood had been supported by the employee at the time of his/her death (see, e.g., Articles 91-4(4) and 63 of the same Act). If the above provision is applied by analogy to the entitlement of the lump-sum survivors’ benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ benefits under the same Article, it would result in reducing the eligibility of disaster compensation benefits on the ground of

4. Determination as to the instant case

A. Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following determination is possible.

1) On May 4, 2006, the Deceased died on May 4, 2006 and at the same time, the Plaintiff and his children jointly inherited the entitlement to disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation

2) Since there is no special provision in the former coal industry law regarding the extinctive prescription of entitlement to disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits under the instant provision, the extinctive prescription period under Article 162(1) of the Civil Act is ten years (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4426, Mar. 14, 2003) and the period of extinctive prescription run from the time when the deceased died.

3) In the case of the right to receive disaster consolation benefits corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay disaster consolation benefits on April 28, 2016, which was ten years before the date of death of the Deceased, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of disaster consolation benefits on October 26, 2016, which was six months after the date of death of the Deceased. As such, the period of extinctive prescription was suspended by the foregoing peremptory notice (Article 174 of the Civil Act).

4) However, in cases where the Plaintiff received the right to receive disaster consolation benefits corresponding to each of his/her respective shares in inheritance, the date on which the notification of the transfer of the right to receive disaster consolation benefits was given to the Defendant on November 13, 2017, with the lapse of ten years from the date of the deceased’s death, barring special circumstances, such as the notification of the transfer of the right to receive the said benefits was a follow-up measure following the agreement on division of inherited property valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9731, Nov. 27, 2001), or there was a ground for suspending the extinctive prescription,

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that, by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on beneficiaries of survivor benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act with respect to disaster consolation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ benefits set forth in the instant provision, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, was entitled to receive the full amount of disaster consolation benefits solely as the bereaved family members with the highest priority. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of disaster consolation benefits equivalent to the lump-sum survivors’ benefits set forth in

5. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)