[1] In case where the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation collects an amount under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from a person who received insurance benefits by unlawful means, the starting date of extinctive

[2] Where the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation rendered a decision to collect an amount equivalent to twice the insurance benefits from a person who received the insurance benefits by unlawful means, the case holding that the above disposition is unlawful since the right to collect unjust enrichment has expired by prescription

[1] Where the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service collects the amount of money under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from a person who received insurance benefits by unlawful means, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect money shall be deemed to run from the date on which the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid the insurance benefits, and even if the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service was unaware of the occurrence of the foregoing reason for collection, and

[2] In a case where the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation decided to collect the amount equivalent to twice the insurance benefits from a person who received the insurance benefits by falsity or other unlawful means, and made a disposition of unjust enrichment collection, the case holding that the statute of limitations for the right to collect unjust enrichment shall run from the date of payment of the insurance benefits regardless of whether the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation knew that he/she has the right to collect unjust enrichment, and that the above disposition based on this ground has expired after the lapse

[1] Article 166 of the Civil Code, Article 84 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 166 of the Civil Code, Article 84 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Nu572 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985, 272), Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10763 Delivered on April 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 916), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da63150 Delivered on May 31, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 962)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu18153 decided January 14, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The extinctive prescription refers to a case where there is a disability in the exercise of rights, for example, the absence of a period or the non-performance of conditions, etc., for instance, in a case where the right is unable to exercise its rights, due to the occurrence of objective rights, and it does not constitute a legal disability (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Nu572, Dec. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10763, Apr. 27, 2004; etc.). Therefore, in collecting the amount prescribed in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act against a person who received insurance benefits by unlawful means, the extinctive prescription of the above right shall be deemed to run from the date when the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation paid the insurance benefits, barring any special circumstance, and even if the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation was unaware of the occurrence of such grounds for collection, it shall not be deemed that there was no negligence in collecting the extinctive prescription.

According to the records, the plaintiffs were aware that they were not the non-party company's workers, and the defendant filed a claim for the insurance benefits on September 24, 2004 upon the above claim. The defendant made an internal decision on January 16, 2007 to collect the amount equivalent to twice the insurance benefits of this case on the ground that the plaintiffs received the insurance benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means, and issued the disposition of this case on February 12, 2007. The payment notice or demand notice as to the disposition of this case were returned twice, and the payment notice or demand notice was delivered after November 15, 2007 to the plaintiffs.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the extinctive prescription of the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case should proceed from January 16, 2007, which the defendant discovered the fact that the defendant received unjust enrichment of this case and decided to collect unjust enrichment of this case, and determined that the extinctive prescription period of this case had expired three years after the above date and the extinctive prescription period of this case had expired, and the disposition of this case based on the validity of the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case was also unlawful.

In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)