1. A. Article 36(1) of the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act explicitly excludes the types of insurance benefits from pneumoconiosis as “medical care benefits under subparagraph 1, nursing benefits under subparagraph 4, funeral expenses under subparagraph 7, vocational rehabilitation benefits under subparagraph 8, pneumoconiosis compensation annuities under Article 91-3, and pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuity under Article 91-4,” but Article 36(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305 of May 20, 2010) prior to the enactment of the said proviso included disability benefits under Article 36(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305 of Nov. 21, 2010; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).

Article 57 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that disability benefits shall be paid to a worker when he/she is cured of an injury or disease due to any reason arising from his/her duties, and disability benefits shall be disability compensation annuities or lump-sum disability compensation benefits prescribed in attached Table 2 according to the disability grade (paragraph 2), and the criteria for disability grade shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 2). According to delegation, Article 53 [Attachment Table 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22492, Nov. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides that the disability grade criteria prescribed in Article 57(2) of the Act shall be determined, and Article 35(2) [Attachment Table 4] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be considered when he/she pays insurance benefits to a worker suffering from pneumoconiosis.

B. According to Article 36(2) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and Article 21(1)2 and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, upon receiving a claim from a person who wishes to receive insurance benefits, such as lump-sum disability compensation benefits or disability compensation annuities, the Corporation shall determine whether to pay insurance benefits and notify the applicant

In addition, Article 81 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that, in cases where a beneficiary of insurance benefits dies, if there are any insurance benefits to be paid, which have not yet been paid, to such beneficiary, the said insurance benefits shall be paid at the request of his/her bereaved family (in cases of bereaved family benefits, other bereaved family members entitled to such benefits) (in cases of bereaved family benefits), and in cases of paragraph (1), if the beneficiary does not claim the insurance benefits before his/her death, the said insurance benefits shall be paid at the request of the bereaved family under the same paragraph

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the records of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, and the reasoning of the lower court and the records, ① Nonparty 2 died on October 12, 2010 with the pre-explosion of pneumoconiosis, the direct death, and multiple long-term care for the deceased (hereinafter “the deceased”), Nonparty 1, the deceased’s children, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on January 1, 2011 against the purport that “the deceased was suffering from pneumoconiosis due to occupational reasons, and the deceased’s symptoms were fixed before the death, and at least falls under class 16 of disability grade No. 11 under attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Decree,” and ② on May 25, 2011, the Defendant brought a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 on the ground that “the deceased’s disability benefits were not paid to the deceased due to a precise examination, etc., and therefore, there was no unpaid insurance benefits to the deceased’s bereaved family members” (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

B. On the premise of such factual basis, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that, inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant left a disability for the Deceased after the treatment for pneumoconiosis was completed, or that the disability grade was not yet determined in the event of the remaining disability, there is no dispute between the parties, the Plaintiffs are entitled to dispute through administrative litigation, etc. in a case where the Defendant applied to the Defendant for the determination of the existence or grade of the deceased’s disability, and then is dissatisfied with the Defendant’s disposition on such disability, the lower court, without going through these procedures, cannot immediately change the payment to the Defendant of disability benefits falling under class 16 of the disability grade stipulated in [Attachment Table 6].

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. In addition to the language, structure, purport, etc. of the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, ① “determination of disability grade” should be deemed to include “determination of disability grade” as the matters to be determined by the Service upon which a claim for disability benefits was made pursuant to Article 21(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; ② Articles 32 through 39 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, Nov. 24, 2010) provide for determination of pneumoconiosis symptoms, such as precise diagnosis, etc.; and Article 39 provides, “the Service shall without delay determine whether it was suffering from pneumoconiosis after deliberation by the Pneumoconiosis Review Committee upon receiving the result of precise diagnosis pursuant to Article 37(1) and the need for medical care therefor and degree of disability (hereinafter “harm determination”). In full view of whether the Service has paid insurance benefits without any basis delegated under the Act and subordinate statutes and whether the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has determined disability grade as the ground for disability benefits and not determined otherwise.

B. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the erroneous premise that the Plaintiffs claiming disability benefits have received prior decision on the deceased’s existence of disability and disability grade and have to claim the payment of disability benefits. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for the request for disability benefits and the scope of examination by the Corporation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)