[구상금][집35(2)민,294;공1987.9.15.(808),1382]
The meaning of "person who received benefits" under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;
If "the person who received the benefits" under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is interpreted extensively to include not only the person who actually received the insurance benefits as the beneficiary but all the bereaved family members who are the heir of the worker in question, other than the beneficiary, the bereaved family members, who are the heir of the worker in question, shall incur losses due to the loss caused by the failure of the beneficiary to claim compensation for the damages against the third party or the reduction of the amount. Therefore, it is reasonable to say "the person who received the benefits" as mentioned above, in reality, to mean the person who received the compensation by contribution from the State.
Article 15(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Republic of Korea Defendant-Appellee-Seak Packaging Corporation
Seoul High Court Decision 201
Daegu High Court Decision 86Na712 delivered on November 14, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the right to claim the lump sum survivors' compensation at the time of original adjudication against the deceased was limited to the portion of the non-party 2, the beneficiary among the lost profits of the deceased under Article 15 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, because the non-party 1, the worker of the non-party 2, who is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder, died of the illegal act such as the defendant's original adjudication, who is a third party during the performance of his duties. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the right to claim the reimbursement against the third party under the above provision.
The issue is that "the person who received the benefits" as referred to in Article 15 (1) of the above Act should be interpreted as including not only the person who actually received the insurance benefits but also all the bereaved family members who are the inheritor of the re-employed worker. However, the expanded interpretation of the above should not be permitted as there is no ground for it. In addition, the extended interpretation of the above shall not be permitted as well. In addition, the bereaved family members, other than the beneficiary, lose their right to claim damages against the third party even without receiving the insurance benefits, or are reduced by the amount of the insurance benefits, which would cause losses not to be the purport of the bereaved family members. Therefore, the "the person who received the benefits" as mentioned above shall be interpreted as the "the person who received the benefits" by the State in reality as stated in the above language
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)