beta
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원거제시법원 2020.02.06 2019가단50127

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's order for payment was issued against the plaintiff by the Changwon District Court 2019Da653, Changwon District Court 2019Da653.

Reasons

1. The instant payment order was issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 12, 1979, while the Defendant was working for the Plaintiff Company on April 21, 2012, and the Plaintiff suffered industrial accident of five spawn joints with the right-hand spawn on the wind, which was on the part of the Defendant’s straw cable while working for the Plaintiff Company on April 21, 2012, and applied for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 15,312,270, such as industrial accident insurance premium, etc. under this Court’s 2019 tea653, and was finalized on August 24, 2019.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim for the instant payment order

A. Since the payment order has become final and conclusive and the res judicata effect does not arise, in a lawsuit of demurrer against the final and conclusive payment order, the failure of the claim prior to the decision of performance recommendation is also a ground for objection. In this case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of objection against the claim.

B. For the following reasons, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s damage claim or insurance claim against the Plaintiff.

(1) If a worker who has suffered or can receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the policyholder shall be exempt from the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason (Article 80(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act). The Plaintiff shall be exempt from the liability for accident compensation for the Defendant

(2) A claim for damages caused by a tort shall be extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised within three years from the date on which the person becomes aware of such damage or the

(Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that even if the defendant's assertion is true, the damage and the perpetrator should have been known at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the extinctive prescription has expired after three years from the date of the occurrence of the accident, and the plaintiff's damage liability

(3) The defendant's portion of claiming insurance proceeds is an insurance company as the insured.