2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff 1 is the deceased Nonparty (date of birth omitted; hereinafter “the deceased”)’s spouse, and Plaintiff 2 is the deceased’s child. The Defendant is a legal entity entrusted with affairs such as determination and payment of insurance benefits by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries pursuant to Article 9 of the Fishing Vessel Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “the Fishing Vessels Disaster Insurance Act”).

B. On November 2, 2012, the deceased left the hospital as a seafarer of ○○ho Lake (6.05 tons, vessel number (Omission), and the formation date of the insurance relationship on May 15, 2004), and thereafter, the deceased died from the hospital in △ general, △△ University Hospital, and △△△△ Hospital, etc. due to an unidentified brain flasing, cerebral flasing, aftermathing, and other mathic symptoms. However, on June 5, 2016, the deceased died of the hospital as “pulmonary function department”, “pulmonary function department”, “pulmonary flasing flas,” and “pulmonary flasing” as the preceding death.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased died for reasons other than his/her duties while on duty, and thus, they constitute subjects of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses as stipulated in the main sentence of Articles 27(2) and 28(1) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses. However, as the deceased died on June 5, 2016, which was three months after the date on which the medical care began, the date on which November 2, 2012, the date on which the date on which the medical care began begins, the deceased did not fall under those eligible for bereaved family benefits under the main sentence of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act, and notified the Plaintiffs of this decision on March 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The main text of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act provides that “where a person dies while receiving medical care for a disease caused by any reason other than duties while on board his/her duty, bereaved family benefits shall be paid,” and does not provide that “where a person dies within three months from the date of commencement of medical care, bereaved family benefits shall be paid.” Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the payment of bereaved family benefits by adding the requirements of death within three months from the date of commencement of medical care

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Matters subject to the payment of bereaved family benefits under the main sentence of Article 27(2) of the Act on Accident Insurance for Fishing Seafarers

A) Relevant issues of the instant case, relationship between the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act and the Seafarers’ Act

(1) In a case where the definition of the terms used in the statute itself is not clearly defined in the scope of the definition or inclusion thereof, the term in the statute must be interpreted by comprehensively taking into account the overall structure, intent and purpose of the statute, the form and content of the provision in question, and the relevant statute, to the extent that it does not go beyond the ordinary and reasonable scope of interpretation of the language in question.

(2) The main text of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act provides that “the defendant shall pay bereaved family benefits to his/her bereaved family members in cases where a fishing vessel crew member, etc. died due to reasons other than his/her duties while serving aboard (including cases where he/she died while receiving medical care due to injury or disease due to reasons other than duties while serving aboard a ship under Article 23(1) and (2).” Article 23(1) and (2) provides that “the defendant shall pay only expenses within the first three months of the period of medical care where a fishing vessel crew member, etc. was injured or suffer from a disease due to reasons other

The plaintiffs asserted that the part of Article 23 (1) and (2) of the "Article 23 (1) and (2)" in the main sentence of Article 27 (2) of the Seafarers' Accident Insurance Act "in cases where a person died while receiving medical care due to an injury or disease, other than his/her duties, while on board under Article 23 (1) and (2)" should not be added as the requirement for the payment of bereaved family benefits on the ground that only "Article 23 (1) and (2)" does not have any special meaning. Thus, the issue of this case is how to interpret the phrase "in cases where a person died while receiving medical care due to an injury or disease, other than duties, while on board under Article 23 (1) and (2)."

(3) The purpose of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act is to promptly and fairly compensate for accidents suffered by fishing vessel crew members, etc. engaged in coastal sea fishing, etc. by forcing them to automatically enter into an accident compensation insurance for fishing vessel crew members, and allowing the Defendant who is not the owner of a fishing vessel to pay accident compensation to fishing vessel crew members, etc. by allowing them to pay accident compensation to fishing vessel crew members, etc., who are engaged in coastal sea fishing, etc., in comparison with the owners, etc. engaged in coastal sea fishing or ocean fishing.

In addition to the case where the subject of compensation is designated as the defendant who is not a shipowner, the Act on Accident Compensation for Fishing Seafarers provides that the type and contents of accident compensation is almost the same as the Seafarers' Act. [The main sentence of Article 99 (2) of the Seafarers' Act provides that "where a seafarer has died (including death during medical care under Article 94 (2)) due to reasons other than his/her duties while on board, the shipowner shall make compensation to his/her bereaved family." In the same manner as Article 94 (2) 1 of the Seafarers' Accident Insurance Act provides that "a shipowner shall pay expenses within the extent of three months necessary for medical care where a seafarer suffers an injury or disease due to reasons other than his/her duties while on board," barring special circumstances, the interpretation of the provisions of the Act on Accident Compensation for Fishing Seafarers shall be identical with the provisions of accident compensation under the Seafarers' Act.

(4) Therefore, after examining the history and purport of the main text of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers’ Act and the main text of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act, we examine the eligibility for bereaved family benefits under the main text of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act.

B) History of the main text of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers Act and of Article 27(2) of the Act on Accident Insurance for Seafarers

(1) Article 98 of the former Seafarers Act, enacted by Act No. 963 on January 10, 1962, stipulated that “where a seafarer died in the course of performing his/her duties, the shipowner shall immediately pay bereaved family allowances to his/her bereaved family members. The same shall apply to the death of a seafarer due to an injury or disease in the course of performing his/her duties” as the subject of compensation for bereaved family members.

However, the main text of Article 90(2) of the former Seafarers’ Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3751, Aug. 7, 1984) provides that “where a seafarer dies due to reasons other than his/her duties while on duty while on duty, the shipowner shall pay bereaved family allowances without delay to his/her bereaved family members” and includes “where a seafarer dies due to reasons other than his/her duties while on duty while on duty” as the subject of compensation for bereaved family members. However, in the above revised provision, it is unclear whether the case falls under the subject of compensation for bereaved family members.

Article 90(2) main text of the former Seafarers Act (amended by Act No. 4255, Aug. 1, 1990) provides that “where a seafarer dies due to reasons other than those of his duty while on board (including the medical care under Article 85(2)1)), the shipowner shall make compensation without delay to his bereaved family members for bereaved family members.” The provision clearly states that “where a seafarer dies due to an injury or disease incurred during the medical care due to reasons other than duty while on board, the shipowner falls under the subject of compensation for bereaved family members.”

(2) The main text of Article 27(2) of the former Act on the Accident Compensation Insurance for Fishing Seafarers and the Fishing Vessels Act, enacted by Act No. 6866 of March 19, 2003, only stipulates that “where a fishing vessel crew member, etc. died (including death during medical care due to injury or disease due to reasons other than duties while on duty) due to reasons other than his/her duty while on board, the Defendant paid bereaved family benefits to his/her bereaved family members,” and did not stipulate the phrase “Article 23(1) and (2)” like the main text of Article 27(2) of the current Act on the Accident Compensation for Fishing Vessels.

However, since May 27, 2009, Article 27(2) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act was amended by Act No. 9727, and the phrase “Article 23(1) and (2)” was added.

C) Purport of the main sentence of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers Act

Article 62 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides accident compensation for ordinary workers, provides that bereaved family's benefits shall be paid only when a worker dies on the ground of his/her duties, and excludes bereaved family's benefits in cases of death during the medical care of injury or disease caused by reasons other than his/her duties.

Unlike Article 62 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the main text of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers Act provides that the bereaved family compensation shall be paid in cases where the worker dies due to reasons other than his/her duties, or where the worker dies while receiving medical care for injury or disease due to reasons other than his/her duties while working on board. The purpose of the main text is to expand the base of protection of seafarers in terms of social policy, taking into account the unique characteristics of the seafarer’s duties, such as the fact that the worker’s work on board is very serious consumption due to the characteristics of his/her duties, that the string of the string due to the collapse, that the string of the string of the string, and that the personal space is not sufficiently secured.

However, if a person dies while receiving medical treatment for injury or disease due to reasons other than duties while working on board, it is difficult to clearly distinguish whether the period of medical treatment is the main cause of death or another disease that occurred while working on board due to the prolonged period of medical treatment is the main cause of death, it may result in unreasonable result that the shipowner’s liability is excessively expanded.

In light of the main text of Article 90(2) of the former Seafarers Act (amended by Act No. 4255 of Aug. 1, 1990), it is reasonable to view that the main text of Article 90(2) of the former Seafarers Act (amended by Act No. 4255 of Aug. 1, 1990) is to include “the provision of medical care under Article 85(2)” in the mutatis mutandis application of Article 85(2) with a limit of three months, in view of the fact that the main text of Article 90(2) of the former Seafarers Act (amended by Act No. 4255 of Aug. 1, 1990) simply provides that “where a seafarer died while receiving medical care due to an injury or disease other than his/her duties while serving aboard the ship, compensation for survivors shall be paid even if he/she died while receiving medical care due to an injury or disease other than his/her duties, it is limited

Therefore, the main text of Article 99(2) of the current Seafarers' Act stipulates that the bereaved family's compensation shall be paid only when the bereaved family is dead within three months from the starting date of the medical care while the seaman was receiving medical care due to an injury or disease other than his/her duties while serving aboard the ship.

D) Interpretation of the main sentence of Article 27(2) of the Act on Insurance for Fishing Seafarers

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the history and purport of the relevant statutes and the purport of the entire argument, namely, ① the main text of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act, which provides almost the same content as that of the main text of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers’ Act, is to be interpreted differently from the main text of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers’ Act, barring any special circumstance; ② Article 27(2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act, amended by Act No. 9727 of May 27, 2009, which does not provide for “in accordance with Article 23(1) and (2) of the Seafarers’ Accident Insurance Act,” it is reasonable to view that the term “in the event of death within three months from the date of commencement of the medical treatment as stipulated in the main text of Article 99(2) of the Seafarers’ Act, it would be clearly expressed that the payment of bereaved family benefits should be made within three months from the date of commencement of the medical treatment and injury or disease during the period.”

E) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the subjects of bereaved family benefits under the main sentence of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers' Accident Insurance Act are limited to cases where ① fishing vessel crew members, etc. die due to reasons other than their duties while serving aboard, ② fishing vessel crew members, etc. died within three months from the date of commencement of the medical care due to injury or disease

2) In the instant case:

On November 2, 2012, when the deceased was on board ○○○, left a cerebral typhism and received medical care from the same day, and the fact that the deceased died on June 5, 2016, which was found to have passed three months from the deceased, is as seen earlier, and there is no dispute between the parties that the said cerebral typhism was caused by reasons other than his/her duties while on duty. Accordingly, the deceased’s death does not constitute a beneficiary of bereaved family benefits under the main sentence of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on a different premise is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)

(1) Article 85 of the former Seafarers Act (amended by Act No. 4255 of Aug. 1, 1990) (2) Where a seafarer is injured or infected by a disease due to reasons other than those of the service on board (including the landing period at the port of call and the travel period accompanying the getting on and off; hereinafter the same shall apply), the shipowner shall provide the shipowner with medical treatment at his own expense or pay the expenses necessary for medical treatment within the limit of three months: Provided, That where the injury or disease was caused by the intention or gross negligence of the seafarer, the shipowner has obtained the approval of the Seafarer Labor

2) The period of landing at the port of call and the period of travel accompanying the embarkation and disembarkation (Article 94(2) of the Seafarers Act and Article 23(1) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act).

3) Many of the fact-finding decisions (Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na11901 decided May 29, 2002, Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2062119 decided May 21, 2016, etc.) also held to the same effect.