According to the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 4, Article 38(1)3, and Article 42(1) and (2) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999), an employee who suffered from a disability due to an occupational accident shall receive disability benefits or lump-sum disability compensation benefits according to the criteria of disability grade prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which are insurance benefits for industrial accident compensation insurance, and except for the case where a pension is paid to a worker with a disability grade whose work force has been completely lost as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the beneficiary shall choose a pension and lump-sum payment. According to the provisions of the former part of Article 48(2) and the main sentence of Article 48(3) of this Act, a beneficiary of insurance benefits under this Act shall not be entitled to receive insurance benefits under this Act and compensation for damages under the Civil Act

In addition, the latter part of Article 48(2) of this Act provides that if a person who receives a disability compensation annuity receives a compensation for damages under the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes, the person who receives the disability compensation annuity shall be deemed to have received the lump-sum disability compensation benefits, and shall deduct the amount equivalent to the lump-sum disability compensation from the amount of damages. In response, the proviso of Article 48(3) of the same Act provides that if the beneficiary of the pension deducts the amount equivalent to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits at the time of calculating the amount of

In light of the purport of each provision, in particular, the distinction between a disability compensation annuity and a lump-sum disability compensation annuity is merely based on the difference in the payment method of disability benefits, and except in special cases, it is reasonable to regard the disability compensation annuity and a lump-sum disability compensation benefit under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as equal to its total value, in view of the fact that the choice of a pension and a lump-sum disability compensation benefit depends on the intent of the beneficiary, and that in the case of a beneficiary of a pension, the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation annuity and the lump-sum disability compensation benefits should be deducted from the amount of the lump-sum compensation benefits. Therefore, if the amount of the lump-sum compensation is deducted from the amount of the disability compensation annuity calculated based on the Civil Act, etc. due to the same cause, the disability compensation annuity and the lump-sum disability compensation annuity under this Act shall be deemed as being deducted from the total amount

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below, if a beneficiary who was receiving a disability compensation annuity due to an occupational accident deducts the amount of such lump-sum compensation, the court below determined that the amount of disability compensation annuity corresponding to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits (the amount is the amount during the period calculated by converting the number of days corresponding to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits which was deducted at the time of receiving the damages from civil action into the pension period) which is considered to have been paid by the beneficiary of the disability compensation annuity pursuant to the proviso of Article 48 (3) of this Act, and the claim for pension is extinguished during the period of the disability compensation annuity equivalent to the lost income out of the amount of the damages received after deducting the amount equivalent to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of duplicate payment of insurance

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 Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)