(a) The meaning of final binding force where the decision on administrative disposition or administrative appeal is made final and conclusive after the lapse of the appeal period;

(b) Whether the amount paid by the business owner after the disposition of refusal to pay survivors' benefits has become final and conclusive due to the lapse of the appeal period, constitutes an insurance benefit under Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is paid by the business owner due to

A. Where an administrative disposition or a ruling on administrative appeal becomes final and conclusive due to the lapse of the appeal period, its final and conclusive power means that a person whose legal interest is infringed on by the disposition can no longer dispute the effect of the disposition or ruling, and further, it does not recognize the same effect as res judicata recognized by the ruling, and thus, factual or legal judgment which forms the basis of the disposition is final and conclusive, and it does not make the parties or the court impossible to make arguments or judgments inconsistent with them.

B. Even if the rejection disposition on the payment of survivors' benefits becomes final and conclusive with the lapse of the appeal period, the legal relation that there is no right to request compensation for survivors' compensation. Thus, if the business owner subsequently paid the compensation for survivors' compensation under the Labor Standards Act following the lawsuit against the losing party, this constitutes a case where the business owner pays in advance the money equivalent to the insurance benefits under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes for the same reason as the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the money and valuables concerned can be considered as being paid in delay to the beneficiary.

(a) Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17181 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993, 1409)

Han Jin Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of the Daegu Southern District Labor Office

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu1538 delivered on February 3, 1993

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 was employed as the head of the business after entering the plaintiff's company under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on June 21, 1982. The non-party 2's claim for the payment of insurance benefits to the defendant for the same reason as that of the non-party 1's death after the death of the non-party 1's office, and the non-party 2's claim for the payment of insurance benefits to the defendant for the same reason as that of the non-party 1's death after the death of the non-party 2's office. The non-party 1's wife's death constitutes the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's compensation.

However, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act was enacted with the aim of ensuring the fairness of insurance benefits by regulating matters on the objection to the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and has special provisions different from the Administrative Appeals Act in regard to the administrative appeal that should be borne by the person who has an objection to the decision on the insurance benefits, such as the appeal period, procedure, examination institution, etc., and where the decision on the disposition on the insurance benefits or the examination (re-examination) becomes final and conclusive after the lapse of the appeal period, it does not recognize any special effect different from the case where the general administrative disposition or the administrative appeal decision on the insurance benefits or the decision on the disposition becomes final and conclusive at the expiration of the appeal period. In general, where an administrative disposition or the decision on the administrative appeal becomes final and conclusive due to the expiration of the appeal period, the final and conclusive effect means that the person who is infringed on the legal interest can no longer dispute the effect of the disposition or the decision on the grounds that it does not recognize the same effect as the res judicata recognized in the decision, and thus it cannot be asserted or contradictory by the parties or the court.

In this case, even though the defendant's rejection disposition against the non-party 2 against the non-party 2 against the non-party 2 against the non-party 2's objection period becomes final and conclusive, the legal relation with the non-party 2's non-party 2's claim for bereaved family's compensation under the Labor Standards Act is not finalized. If the plaintiff company paid it from the non-party 2 due to the non-party 2's claim for bereaved family's compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it shall be deemed that "if the business owner has paid in advance the money equivalent to the insurance benefits under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes for the same reason as the reason for the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it may be deemed that the relevant money can be considered as being paid in delay." Accordingly, the defendant who received a claim for late payment from the plaintiff company shall be determined by examining whether the money and valuables paid by the plaintiff company meet the requirements for the payment of the insurance benefits, and whether it is paid in delay.

Although the court below should have deliberated on the above facts and judged whether the defendant's disposition of this case was legitimate, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant's rejection disposition against the non-party 2 became final and conclusive without doing so. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confirmation power of administrative disposition, failing to exhaust all deliberations as to whether the case constitutes occupational accident and the requirements for payment of delayed insurance proceeds, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)