부당이득금징수처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 13, 1993, the husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) of the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) received medical care from the Defendant on the part of May 10, 1995 due to occupational accidents, and died on August 23, 2002 while receiving a disability compensation annuity from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff received KRW 381,831,540 in total as a disability compensation annuity for the Deceased, without reporting the death of the Deceased to the Defendant, on the premise that the Deceased would continue to receive the disability compensation annuity for the Deceased, and without reporting it to the Defendant from September 2002 to August 2013.
Accordingly, on November 26, 2014, the defendant applied Article 84(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the plaintiff on November 26, 2014, issued a decision on collection of KRW 151,771,00, which is twice the extinctive prescription of KRW 75,885,500, which has not yet been completed, to the plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul’s evidence No. 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Although Article 84(1)2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act should apply to the Plaintiff’s act, it is unlawful to collect double the amount of unjust enrichment by applying Article 84(1)1 of the same Act to the Plaintiff’s act. As such, the part exceeding KRW 75,885,50 of the instant disposition should be revoked.
B. Article 84(1) main text of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “Where a person who received insurance benefits falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Service shall collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the benefits (in cases falling under subparagraph 1, the amount equivalent to twice the amount of the benefits)” and provides that “in cases where the person received the insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means, the Service has received the insurance benefits”
The legislative intent of the above provisions is to collect punitive amounts equivalent to twice the amount of benefits in the case of violation of subparagraph 1.