2019Gudan51881 Revocation of Disposition of Additional Payment of Medical Care Benefits

nan

nan

June 27, 2019

July 25, 2019

1. 피고가, 2019. 1. 10. 원고 김■■에 대하여 한, 2018. 10. 29. 원고 윤■■에 대하여 한, 2019. 1. 10. 원고 정■■ 에 대하여 한 각 요양급여부지급처분을 취소한다 .

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. ◆◆◆◆ ( 이하 ' 이 사건 사업체 ' 라 한다 ) 는 냉난방장치도매, 냉난방설비공사 등을 업종으로 하는 사업체이다 .

B. On March 20, 2018, the instant business entity entered into a contract with the business entity to receive a contract by setting the contract amount of 697,460,000 won for the “○○○ factory ○○ 50,000,000 COLS 50,000, which is the subsidiary of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) as the contract amount by June 10, 2018.

다. ○ ○○○ 현지 공장에서 이 사건 공사가 진행되던 중, 2018. 5. 31. 원고 윤■■과 원고 정■■ 이 천장의 전기트레이 작업 중 천장 구조물이 무너지면서 추락하는 사고가 발생하였다. 이후 천장 보수작업을 마치고 2018. 6. 1. 원고 김■■가 전기트레 이 작업을 재개하였으나 다시 천장이 무너지면서 원고 김■■가 추락하였다. 위 사고로 인하여 원고 김■■는 우측 종골 분쇄 골절상을, 원고 윤■■은 요추제1번 압박골 절상을, 원고 정■■은 우측 족부, 종골 분쇄골절상을 각 입었다 .

라. 원고들은 위 사고를 원인으로 하여 피고에 대하여 요양급여신청을 하였으나, 피고는, 2019. 1. 10. 원고 김■■에 대하여, 2018. 10. 29. 원고 윤■■에 대하여, 2019 .

1. 10. 원고 정■■에 대하여 아래와 같은 사유로 각 요양급여부지급처분 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 각 처분 ' 이라 한다 ) 을 하였다 .

(mark - omitted)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 8 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiffs did not work overseas as a temporary agency, but merely worked overseas, and were employed by the instant company, and performed their duties in accordance with the direction of the employer Kim Jong-young, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs are subject to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. On a different premise, each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiffs is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that "this Act shall not apply to all businesses or places of business that employ workers: Provided, That this Act shall not apply to businesses prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account risk rates, sizes, places, etc., and does not provide for any particular provision as to whether such businesses are included in foreign countries: Provided, That Article 121 (1) provides for "the special provision on overseas dispatch of a dispatched worker who is dispatched to work for a business conducted outside the territory of the Republic of Korea by the insured in consultation with the Financial Services Commission in order to compensate for an accident to workers who have occurred during his/her work outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, the employment union chief may allow a person designated by the Republic of Korea in consultation with the Financial Services Commission to engage in insurance business under this Act for his/her own account", and Article 122 (1) provides for "the special provision on overseas dispatch of a dispatched worker in the territory of the Republic of Korea (in cases of two or more businesses, referring to the main workers who are employed)."

In light of the above contents, form, and system of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and the fact that the industrial accident compensation insurance takes charge of the business and satisfies certain conditions under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, a business owner is naturally insured, insurance premium can be collected in a uniform and compulsory manner, and Article 121 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides for the special case of the so-called overseas accident compensation insurance for overseas businesses, and Article 122 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides for the application of the Act only to the case where a business owner files an application for insurance with the defendant and obtains approval to the defendant, it shall be deemed that the business under Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is performed in the Republic of Korea, unless there are special circumstances. However, if a worker is dispatched to a foreign country and is on duty with the business owner in the Republic of Korea, it shall be deemed that the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship between the business owner and the domestic business owner is still maintained, and if the worker is on duty under the direction of the business owner in the Republic of Korea, it shall not be deemed that the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is applied.

2) In light of the following circumstances as to the instant case, in light of the foregoing recognition facts, and evidence Nos. 4, 7 through 20, and evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12 as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs were affiliated with the instant company and engaged in work under the direction of the business owner Kim Jong-young, merely in fact at the time of the occurrence of a disaster, and that they were in a foreign country. Therefore, the instant dispositions against the Plaintiffs should be governed by the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and thus, each of the instant dispositions against the instant company was contracted to perform the heating and cooling work of a factory located overseas, and the cream studio construction work. The instant construction works performed directly under their own responsibility and calculation without establishing a separate business entity in the local area, upon being awarded a contract for construction works by the instant company.

B) In the course of the heating and cooling construction of a plant located overseas, Kim Jong-chul left Korea with workers and stayed in a foreign country and directed and supervised the construction work. On May 16, 2018, Kim Jong-chul also left Korea with the Plaintiffs, and directly and specifically directed the instant construction work. There was no fact that the instant construction was directed by the business entity or workers in a lawsuit or its subsidiary.

C) The contract amount of the instant construction contract included all wages of workers necessary for construction performance, and the Plaintiffs’ wages were paid by the instant enterprise and withheld the income tax.

라 ) 원고 김■■는 2004. 8. 3. 이 사건 사업체에 입사하여 상용직으로 근무하여 왔다. 원고 김■■는 이 사건 사업체가 해외에서 진행한 2014년 ①00 공장의 크린룸 공사, 2016년 및 2017년 ①①① ◈ 공장의 크린룸 공사 ( 1차 내지 4차 ) 에 참가하였으나, 위 해외 공사 기간을 포함하여 재직기간 동안 계속하여 이 사건 사업체로부터 급여를 지급받고 인사관리를 받아왔고, 각 공사를 마친 후에는 다시 국내 사업장에서 계속 근로하여 왔으며, 이 사건 공사 종료 후에도 이 사건 사업체의 국내 사업장에서의 근로가 예정되어 있었다 .

마 ) 원고 윤■■, 정■■은 김□□가 이 사건 공사를 위하여 근로계약을 체결한 일용근로자로서, 이 사건 공사 종료 후 이 사건 사업체의 국내 사업장으로 복귀하여 위 사업체에서 근로를 제공할 것이 예정되어 있지는 않았다. 그러나 국내 사업장으로의 복귀 여부는 해외에서 근로시에도 사업주의 지배, 관리가 단절되지 않고 지속적으로 이루어졌는지 여부를 판단함에 있어 하나의 정황일 뿐이고, 앞서 본 바와 같이 해 외파견자에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하는데 있어 가장 중요한 기준은 근로자가 해외에서 업무를 수행함에 있어 누구의 지휘 · 감독을 받았느냐 여부라 할 것인데, 원고들이 모두 김□□의 구체적이고 직접적인 지휘 하에 이 사건 공사 업무를 수행하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 원고 윤■■, 정■■의 경우 일용근로자로서의 특성상 이 사건 사업체의 국내 사업장으로 복귀가 예정되지 않았다는 사정만으로 위 원고들과 원고 김■■를 달리 판단하는 것은 부당하다 .

3) Meanwhile, the defendant's enterprise of this case is "doing retail and consumer goods repair business" on June 5, 2004.

The industrial accident compensation insurance is established, and the Corporation asserts to the effect that it constitutes a machinery and equipment corporation according to the schedule of business type, and thus is subject to voluntary subscription as a separate business from domestic business.

However, in an appeal litigation, in order to protect the substantial rule of law and the trust of the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition, the agency may add or modify the grounds for disposition only to the extent recognized as identical in the grounds for the original disposition and basic factual relations. The defendant's above assertion is added to the new grounds for disposition as it did not indicate the grounds for each disposition at the time of the instant disposition. This is identical to the original grounds for disposition and its basic factual relations

Since it cannot be seen that the above disposition ground is not allowed to be added. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dok-hee