[손해배상][집25(3)민,43;공1977.10.15.(570) 10291]
Liability for damages where the business owner reports less average wages which are the basis for the amount of insurance benefits.
Where the amount of insurance benefits to be paid to workers on the basis of their average wages is less than the amount of insurance benefits that should be paid on the basis of their average wages due to a mistake in reporting and paying the amount of insurance premiums by the business owner, an employee entitled to the insurance benefits may request the correction thereof by taking procedures for objection against the decision of the amount of
Article 36 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)
Dong New Bus Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hwang Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 76Na872 delivered on April 12, 1977
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined (the grounds of appeal are examined after the expiration of the submission period, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the amount of insurance benefits, such as disability benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits, which are paid to workers suffering from occupational accidents, after compiling the relevant provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the Act on the Business and Examination, is to be calculated and paid according to the average wage of workers who are eligible for such benefits, and the amount of insurance premiums to be paid by the insured shall not be determined according to the amount of the average wage of each worker who is the insured or the amount of his reported, and the amount of insurance premiums to be paid by the insured shall be determined by the amount calculated by multiplying the total insurance premium rate applicable to the same business for each insurance year, and it shall not be determined according to the amount of the insurance benefits paid by the insured or the amount of each worker who has reported to the insured, as the result of this case, the insured company's claim for the calculation of the difference between the average wage and the amount of the insurance benefits paid by the Plaintiff and the amount of the insurance benefits paid by the Administrator of the Korea Industrial Safety Office on the basis of 160 days’s average wage.
However, in this case where the defendant company, the insured, reported the plaintiff's wage of 1,860 won per day to the head of the labor office as alleged by the plaintiff, does not dispute the fact that the defendant reported the plaintiff's wage of 1,860 won per day to the head of the labor office as alleged by the plaintiff, and it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff would have received the insurance benefits on the basis of the average wage if he paid the insurance premium accordingly, and that the plaintiff would have received the insurance benefits on the basis of the claim. In addition, in light of Article 36 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Article 36 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), it is reasonable to say that the report is true and reliable unless there is any special circumstance to suspect that the report by the defendant who is the insured is different from the fact, and it is difficult to view that there is no fault in finding that there is a false causal relation between the defendant's report and the result that the head of the labor office presented the plaintiff's average wage less the defendant's report, and the plaintiff's report and the result did not correct it.
If we look like the original judgment, the result of the wrong report by the business owner, who is the insured, is responsible for the employee, and if the business owner fails to correct it, the business owner shall be exempted from liability, and if he/she fails to correct it, he/she shall be subject to the disadvantage of the employee due to his/her mistake. In such cases, the employee who is the beneficiary of the insurance benefits, may arbitrarily choose the amount of the insurance benefits, such as demanding the correction of the decision made by the Administrator of the Labor Agency by taking the appeal procedures under the Act on the Business of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Examination
In this case, the court below's dissenting opinion is eventually erroneous in misunderstanding the causal relationship and other legal principles as to the claim for damages caused by tort, which affected the judgment, and it is reasonable to discuss.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)