(a) Whether an employer can claim compensation against the State, if a worker receives an accident compensation first from the employer;

(b) Whether a worker's failure to appeal the decision dismissing the industrial accident insurance benefits of the State becomes an obstacle to exercising the right to indemnity as referred to in the above "A"

A. Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating an employee from the standpoint of the insurer the State for damages caused by an occupational accident of the employee who is liable to compensate under the Labor Standards Act. It is reasonable to view that the reason and type of insurance benefits are identical or similar to the accident compensation, and the criteria for calculating the amount of benefits are the same as that of accident compensation, and that the employer’s liability for damages under the Labor Standards Act is also performed with the nature of liability insurance in addition to the nature of the employee’s livelihood security in relation to the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and that the State should ultimately be liable for damages in relation to the employer’s relationship with the State. Therefore, in cases where the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was revised before December 27, 1993, the employer is exempted from all liability for accident compensation for the same cause, and the State is not able to indemnify the employer, but if the employee has first received the accident compensation from the employer, the State has no obligation to pay the insurance benefits to the employee within the extent of such amount, and the employer (employer) can indemnify the State within the amount

B. Even if the validity of an administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive, and the factual or legal judgment, which forms the basis of the disposition, becomes final and conclusive, and the parties or the court cannot make any assertion or judgment inconsistent with it. Thus, the reason that the bereaved family members of the deceased worker claimed industrial accident insurance benefits first but dismissed by the local government office, and did not raise any objection thereto, cannot be said to be an obstacle to the employer’s filing a claim for reimbursement against the State as referred to in the above “A.”

A. Article 9 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 11 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4641 of Dec. 27, 1993)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu28204 Decided Nov. 14, 1989 (Gong1990,27). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17181 Decided Apr. 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1409) (Gong193Sang, 2648) Decided Aug. 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2648)

Attorney Kim Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 93Na2954 delivered on June 25, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows.

A. The plaintiff's ground for claim

(1) On December 17, 198, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased), who was a driver of the taxi belonging to the plaintiff, was in charge of the repair of the above taxi and drinking alcohol in the vicinity, was killed in any underground warehouse due to the mistake that he was in a toilet. The plaintiff was covered by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter "Industrial Accident Insurance Act") as an enterprise subject to the Labor Standards Act, and the plaintiff was covered by the insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act"), so the non-party 2, who was the wife of the deceased, requested the bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses to the Busan Local Labor Office, and was dismissed on the ground that it cannot be recognized as an occupational accident.

(2) Accordingly, the bereaved family members of the deceased filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for bereaved family members and funeral expenses under the Labor Standards Act, and sentenced the deceased to pay KRW 13,481,120 as it is deemed to have died due to occupational accidents. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,00,000 by adding damages for delay pursuant to the above judgment.

(3) Therefore, with respect to the defendant, although the duty to pay the industrial accident insurance money to the bereaved family members was the first obligation to pay the industrial accident insurance money to the defendant, the plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to pay it to the defendant and extinguished the defendant's obligation, and thus, the defendant seeks reimbursement of the above amount equivalent to the above expenses because the plaintiff, as a result of the plaintiff's withdrawal, had the deceased's bereaved family members exempted from the above obligation to pay the industrial accident insurance money, thereby seeking return of the above amount. In addition, the plaintiff, who has the interest to pay selectively, had performed the above obligation on behalf of the defendant, and the plaintiff sought reimbursement of the above expenses in accordance with the principle of subrogation of the person liable for payment, and the defendant, on the ground that the death of the deceased was caused by occupational accident, did not perform the obligation under the industrial accident insurance contract with the plaintiff, and thus, sought

B. The judgment of the court below

Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating the employee for damages caused by the occupational accident of the employee who shall be compensated by the employer under the Labor Standards Act from the standpoint of the insurer, but it does not have the nature of liability insurance for damages to be borne by the employer. Thus, even if the Plaintiff paid accident compensation to the deceased’s bereaved family members, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim insurance benefits against the Defendant by subrogation or the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim reimbursement against the Defendant. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff was exempted from the obligation to pay the insurance benefits within the scope of the amount by compensating for damages based on civil liability as the employer, even if the Plaintiff was exempted from the obligation to pay the insurance benefits, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the failure of the Plaintiff to perform its legal obligation

2. The purpose of the accident compensation system under the Labor Standards Act is to protect an employee who provides labor under his control, and to compensate an employer who operates an enterprise in which the risk of disasters exists for the damages suffered by the employee due to the occurrence of the disaster (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 81Meu351, Oct. 13, 1981). However, it is deemed that the employee has the nature of livelihood security as well as compensation for the damages caused by the worker’s occupational accident. As such, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, enacted by Act No. 1438, Nov. 5, 1963, established the industrial accident insurance system to promptly and fairly compensate the worker’s occupational accident (Article 1).

3. According to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Labor Standards Act, there are compensation for medical care (Article 78), compensation for suspension of work (Article 79), compensation for survivors (Article 80), funeral expenses (Article 82), and Article 87 of the same Act provides that if a person entitled to receive compensation receives money equivalent to accident compensation under the same Act for the same reason, an employer shall be exempted from liability for compensation in accordance with the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes. The Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that the Minister of Labor shall take charge of the industrial accident insurance business (Article 2(1)), the owner of a business shall naturally become an insured except for the business prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 6), the Minister of Labor shall collect insurance premiums from the insured (Article 19), the types of insurance benefits shall be exempted from medical care benefits, disability benefits, survivor's benefits, funeral expenses, and funeral expenses (Article 83). Article 87 of the same Act provides that an insured person shall be exempted from liability for accident compensation benefits under the same Act within the limit of the original amount of accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and Article 18 through 308 of the same Act.

In light of the above provisions, the industrial accident insurance system is not directly derived from the accident compensation system under the Labor Standards Act, but is a separate system that exists concurrently based on the legal principles of the employer's liability for compensation for occupational accidents of workers. However, insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating for the damages caused by the occupational accidents of workers who are obliged to compensate under the Labor Standards Act from the standpoint of the insurer, and it does not have the nature of liability insurance with respect to civil liability for damages that the employer is liable for damages caused by the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 8Da28204 delivered on Nov. 14, 1989), but it is reasonable to view that the reason and type of the insurance benefits, the basis for calculating the amount of benefits is identical or similar to the accident compensation system under the Labor Standards Act, and the mutual adjustment regulations are established based on the identity of the function of the employee, other than the nature of the employee's livelihood security, as well as the nature of liability insurance, with respect to the employee's accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act.

4. Therefore, the issue to be discussed separately after the amendment of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act or at least before the amendment, both the employer's claim for accident compensation and the State's claim for industrial accident insurance benefits, and it is desirable to take priority over the claim for industrial accident insurance benefits since the industrial accident insurance has the nature of liability insurance and generally is more favorable to workers than the accident compensation, but it is not desirable to prevent workers from claiming for accident compensation. Therefore, the beneficiary may exercise two claims selectively, and the employer may not be exempted from liability for accident compensation unless it proves that the industrial accident insurance claim has occurred specifically (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2144, Nov. 24, 1970).

However, such position is that the relationship between the employer and the State should be seen as such in relation to the worker suffering from an accident, and it does not necessarily mean that the relationship between the employer and the State, the relationship between the accident compensation and the industrial accident insurance, the nature of the industrial accident insurance, the employer's subscription to the industrial accident insurance and the payment of insurance premiums are enforced, and the Industrial Accident Insurance Act prior to the amendment provides that the beneficiary is exempted from all the accident compensation liability of the policyholder for the same reason when the beneficiary receives the insurance benefits. However, in light of the fact that the beneficiary does not provide that the insurance benefits should not be paid only when the beneficiary receives the benefits equivalent to the insurance benefits pursuant to the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes for the same reason, the State should ultimately be liable for the compensation in relation to the employer's relationship with the State, and otherwise, it is unreasonable because it is contrary to the purpose of establishing the industrial accident insurance system.

Therefore, before the amendment of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, if the industrial accident insurance benefits were incurred prior to the accident compensation, the employer shall be exempted from all the liability for accident compensation for the same reason, and the State shall not automatically make any claim against the employer. However, if an employee receives the accident compensation from the employer first, the State shall be deemed to have no obligation to pay the insurance benefits to the employee within the scope of the amount, and if the requirements for the industrial accident insurance benefits were met, the employer (employer) shall be deemed to be able to

6. In this case, the deceased's wife first filed an industrial accident insurance benefit claim, but dismissed by the office of the Busan Northern Labor District Office, and the plaintiff filed a claim for accident compensation against the plaintiff and paid the accident compensation by losing the plaintiff in the lawsuit. However, even if the administrative disposition became final and conclusive and the validity of the disposition becomes no longer arguable, the facts or legal judgments which form the basis of the disposition are final and conclusive, and the parties or the court cannot make any arguments or judgments inconsistent with them, and the above reasons cannot be said to be obstacles to the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant (the plaintiff cannot be said to be obstacles to the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant.

7. According to Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11960 of Aug. 27, 1986), where a business owner has already paid money or goods equivalent to insurance benefits pursuant to the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes for the same reason as the reason for insurance benefits under the same Act, and where it can be deemed that such money or goods have been paid in subrogation, if the business owner wishes to receive money or goods from the Minister of Labor for the same reason, he/she shall request the Minister of Labor with documents certifying the fact that the money or goods equivalent to the insurance benefits have been paid in advance for the same reason as the reason for the insurance benefits. This provision is a special provision allowed in cases where it can be deemed that the industrial

8. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the nature of accident compensation and industrial accident insurance as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out has merit

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)