[손해배상][공1981.2.1.(649),13457]
The claim for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act and the transfer procedure;
Matters concerning accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act shall be allowed only where the Labor Relations Commission has undergone an examination or arbitration of the Labor Relations Commission, or the Labor Relations Commission has failed to conduct an examination or arbitration within one month after receiving a request for examination or arbitration.
Articles 88, 89, and 90 of the Labor Standards Act
Attorney Lee Tae-sik, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and 3 others
forest chemical industry corporation, Attorneys Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3946 delivered on June 9, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff et al. are examined.
According to the court below's reasoning, the defendant is a company employing several hundreds of the plaintiffs, and the deceased non-party 1 is a regular worker who was employed as the defendant's labor force around November 1978. Since he received 100,000 monthly salary from January 1979 and died during May 8 of the same year, the defendant is obligated to pay 3,300,000 won to the non-party's bereaved family members under Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act or 29,70,000 won for funeral expenses under Article 83 of the same Act, or 3,432,70 won for which the above non-party's compensation cannot be claimed by the Labor Relations Commission or 90,000 won for the above non-party's compensation for damages. According to the court below's reasoning that the non-party 2, who was the above non-party's punishment, received 2,500,000 won for arbitration or 98,000 won for the above non-party 18.
Although it is clear that the above conjunctive claim is based on Articles 82 and 83 of the Labor Standards Act (Records 131 et al., the plaintiff's preparatory brief), it is not acceptable to accept the above conjunctive claim based on the premise that the above conjunctive claim was a cause of a tort by the defendant's tort, and the case of the party members of the lawsuit (refer to January 26, 1956 et al., 428 citizens et al., al., 1956) is related to a case in which the cause of a tort is a cause of a tort, and it is not appropriate to this case. (The original trial rejected the plaintiff's main claim on the grounds of the defendant's tort lawfully)
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)