B. Whether an employer acquires a right to benefit under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on behalf of a worker, where the employer paid damages to the worker (negative)

C. In the case of the preceding paragraph, the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the state (negative)

B. Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating for the damages caused by occupational accidents from the standpoint of the insurer, but it does not have the nature of liability insurance for civil damages to be borne by the employer. Therefore, even if the employer paid damages to the employee under the civil law, even if the employer paid damages to the employee, it cannot be subrogated to acquire the right to claim insurance benefits against the State of the employee.

C. Even though an employer, who has purchased industrial accident compensation insurance, was exempted from the obligation to pay insurance benefits within the limit of the amount by compensating for damages based on the civil liability as an employer for damages caused by occupational accidents, the employer is merely exempted from the obligation to pay the insurance benefits. If the insurance benefits were already paid to the beneficiary, the employer shall be exempted from the liability for damages under the civil law as to the same cause, within the limit of the amount, and thus, even if it is certain to pay the insurance benefits in the future unless the insurance benefits were actually paid, it shall not be deducted from the amount of damages in advance. Thus, it cannot be said that the business owner suffered damages on the ground that he paid the amount of insurance benefits without deducting the amount of

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) With respect to the delayed payment of the insurance benefits:

According to the provisions of Article 16 (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the right to receive insurance benefits shall not be transferred or seized, but shall be delegated to the business owner as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the provisions of Article 32 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, one of the cases where the business owner may delegate the receipt of insurance benefits to the business owner is one of the cases where the person who is entitled to receive the insurance benefits can be entrusted with the receipt of the insurance benefits.

According to the facts established by the court below in this case, when the plaintiff was a policyholder of industrial accident compensation insurance, and the plaintiff was injured by a sudden accident in the course of work at the pressure construction site under construction by the plaintiff's contract with the non-party Korea Electric Power Corporation and filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and the above Korea Electric Power Corporation for damages compensation, the plaintiff was judged in favor of the court ordering the payment of the damages amount of KRW 94,284,830 (property damage amount of KRW 91,284,830, KRW 3,000). The above Korea Electric Power Corporation paid the total amount of the above payment to the above non-party 1 under the compensation agreement with the above Korea Electric Power Corporation, and the plaintiff paid the above full amount to the above Korea Electric Power Corporation in accordance with the compensation agreement with the above Korea Electric Power Corporation. Accordingly, the above recognition and the reasons are that the plaintiff paid the compensation amount to the above Korea Electric Power Corporation cannot be deemed to be a case where the plaintiff is considered to be an urgent receipt of insurance benefits or its payment.

In the above purport, the decision of the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the right to receive the insurance benefits was delegated to the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff paid the insurance benefits in delay. There is no violation of law such as the theory

(2) As to the subrogated acquisition of the right to claim insurance benefits:

Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating the worker for the damages caused by the occupational accident of the worker who shall be compensated by the employer under the Labor Standards Act from the standpoint of the insurer, but it does not have the nature of liability insurance for civil damages which the employer would bear due to the accident. Therefore, even if the employer paid the damages under the civil law to the worker, it shall not be deemed that the employee's right to claim

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's letter of subrogation acquisition is just and there is no error of law like theory

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

Even though a business owner who has purchased industrial accident compensation insurance is exempted from the obligation to pay insurance benefits within the limit of the amount by compensating for damages to a worker who has suffered from occupational accidents based on the civil liability as an employer, it cannot be said that the business owner has suffered damages because it is merely the performance of his/her legal obligation, so there is no room for seeking a return of unjust enrichment from the insurance benefits to the

The issue is that if the employer pays the insurance benefits to the worker suffering from the accident without deducting the amount of the insurance benefits from the amount of the damages to be paid to the worker suffering from the accident, the employer is exempted from the civil liability for damages for the same reason. However, if the insurance benefits have already been paid to the beneficiary, it shall be deducted from the amount of the damages, and even if it is clear that the insurance benefits should be paid in the future without deducting the amount of the insurance benefits, it shall not be deducted from the amount of the damages in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu15512, Jun. 27, 1989).

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and unjust enrichment, such as theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)