Nationality Vietnam

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Representative President 000

Legal representative 000

2. The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on May 13, 2010 on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On July 2004, the Plaintiff’s husband B (the Plaintiff’s husband, Vietnam, 1972 birth, hereinafter “the Deceased”) is the deceased.

26. On June 4, 2006, while becoming an industrial trainee in the non-party C Company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party C Company"), the non-party C died (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). On the result of the autopsy on the deceased, the non-party C submitted a report on a serious accident to the defendant on June 8, 2006.

B. On November 14, 2007, the Defendant determined the instant accident as an occupational accident that occurred while the Deceased performed his duties, and notified the head of the Daegu Foreign Labor Counseling Center and the non-party company of a written public notice to inform the deceased to submit a written claim for compensation for survivors and funeral expenses by confirming the bereaved family members of the deceased.

C. On January 21, 2008, Daegu Foreign Labor Counseling Center submitted to the Defendant a document to the effect that on August 21, 2008, the Plaintiff, the top priority beneficiary of the Deceased, was laid away at his mother’s home and could not make a claim for lack of communication between the deceased. Accordingly, on August 206, the next priority beneficiary submitted a document to the effect that the parent of the deceased, the guardian of the deceased, who is the minor (child) of the deceased, is the applicant for the right to request compensation for survivors and funeral expenses.

D. The Defendant issued a written request to the Daegu Foreign Labor Counseling Center on January 28, 2008 and September 1, 2008 of the same year on the ground that the Plaintiff does not have a right to claim for compensation for survivors and funeral expenses on the ground that the Plaintiff does not have a right to claim for compensation for survivors and funeral expenses on three occasions over the same year and September 28, 2008. As such, the Defendant issued a written public notice to request the submission of the written request within the extinctive prescription period (three years from the day following the death day) along with public materials to confirm the Plaintiff’s death or disappearance. On the other hand, the Defendant sent to the Vietnam Ambassador in Korea, and the date

9. 1. On January 28, 2009, both parties notified twice all public documents pertaining to the Plaintiff’s death or disappearance, and notified the submission of official documents.

E. On May 11, 2010, the Plaintiff’s survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant survivor’s benefits, etc.”)

A claim for the payment was filed, but the defendant filed the claim on May 13, 2010 on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the right to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was completed after three years have elapsed since the deceased's death. On May 13, 2010, the defendant made a site-based disposition against the plaintiff, such as survivor's benefits, etc. (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 12 (including Serial number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The starting point of calculating extinctive prescription of the right to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not the date of death of the deceased, but the time when the death of the deceased becomes final and conclusive as an industrial accident. In other words, the Defendant’s disposition that reported otherwise is unlawful even though the death of the deceased was to be done on November 4, 2007, which was approved

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) A claim for insurance money is not an abstract right before the occurrence of an insurance accident, but becomes entitled to exercise a right after the occurrence of an insurance accident. Thus, in principle, the extinctive prescription of a claim for insurance money is to run from the time of the occurrence of an insurance accident, barring any special circumstances. However, even where it is objectively unclear whether an insurance accident occurred, and it is impossible for the claimant to become aware of the occurrence of an insurance accident without negligence, construing that the extinctive prescription of a claim for insurance money will run from the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident to the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident is in line with the principle of justice and equity and with the reasons for the existence of the extinctive prescription system. Thus, if it is impossible to objectively confirm the occurrence of an insurance accident from the objective perspective, it is interpreted that the extinctive prescription of a claim for insurance money will run from the time when the claimant knew or could have known of the occurrence of the insurance accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da31168, Apr. 27, 2001>

(2) In the instant case, in light of the following circumstances recognized as seen earlier, the right to claim the payment of bereaved family benefits, etc. in the instant case ought to be deemed to have not yet lapsed. In other words, ① Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Report Act, including the right to claim the payment of bereaved family benefits, etc. in the instant case, including the right to claim the payment of bereaved family benefits, etc., requires that all workers’ injury or disease should constitute occupational accidents. As such, the Defendant also confirmed whether the occupational accident was recognized first when the employee’s bereaved family members received the application

The deceased died on June 4, 2006, and the plaintiff appears to have been aware of the deceased's death. However, the plaintiff could exercise the right to claim the payment of survivors' benefits of this case against the deceased as long as the cause for payment is not recognized as a public figure because it is difficult to know whether there was a proximate causal relation between the deceased's death during the performance of his duties and the deceased's death before he was notified of the fact that the deceased's death constitutes an occupational accident. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19134, Nov. 14, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20358, Nov. 14, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Nov. 14, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20357, Nov. 14, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20307, Nov. 14, 2007>

(3) However, it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of survivors' benefits, etc. of this case from November 14, 2007 to May 11, 201, 201, before the expiration of the three-year period stipulated in the above law. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the right to claim the payment of survivors' benefits, etc. of this case has expired by prescription should be revoked illegally.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is accepted.

Judges Kim Jong-gi - Do-

Judges Lee free of charge -

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.