[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

July 6, 2017

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan63753 decided April 27, 2017

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition on May 19, 2016 against the Plaintiff for pneumoconiosis disability compensation benefits shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The Plaintiff, from May 1, 1960 to July 1, 1973, was discharged from the Korea Coal Corporation’s ○○ Mining Center, and from January 1, 1974 to October 1, 1979, the Plaintiff served as each mining source at △△△△△ Mining Center, a corporation, from January 1, 1974 to October 1, 1979.

B. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis on October 15, 1979, and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, from March 24, 1980 to March 29, 1980, and was diagnosed with precision, from March 24, 1980, and was judged to be class 3 of the disability grade with pneumoconiosis type 1/1, and cardiopulmonary function F2 (serious disability). Accordingly, on May 27, 1980, the Defendant paid KRW 15,476,060 to the Plaintiff as disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

C. As a result of a precise diagnosis from March 20, 2014 to March 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 11 of the disability grade, based on the pneumoconiosis type 1/0 and cardiopulmonary function F1/2 (Minor disability).

D. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of disability consolation benefits of class 3 of the pneumoconiosis grade under the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and the Protection, etc. of Pneumoconiosis Workers (hereinafter “ Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act”). However, on June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff determined a site payment on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment of disability consolation benefits has expired by the expiration of the three-year extinctive prescription period.”

E. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits of grade 11 under the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act. Accordingly, on May 19, 2016, the Defendant requested adjudication on revocation of the instant disposition to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the ground that “In accordance with Article 4 of the Addenda to the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, a worker who received disability consolation benefits (including a worker who had caused the cause for payment before this Act enters into force) pursuant to the previous provisions is obliged to pay disability consolation benefits in accordance with the previous provisions where the pneumoconiosis grade was changed after this Act enters into force. The Plaintiff made a decision on site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff requested adjudication on the revocation of the instant disposition to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 31, 2016, but was dismissed on August 23, 2016.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Termination of the amendment of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act and the establishment of transitional regulations;

Article 24 of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010; hereinafter “former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act”) separates the types of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits into “work transition allowances, disability consolation benefits, and bereaved family consolation benefits” (Article 1). Of them, Article 24 provides that disability consolation benefits shall be paid to “where a worker, retired, or retired, becomes subject to disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to pneumoconiosis” (Article 3).

On the other hand, Article 24 of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 10304, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “Revised Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act”) provides that “work transition allowances and pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits” shall be limited to the type of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits, and the former survivors’ consolation benefits system shall be abolished (Paragraph 1); and “worker whose pneumoconiosis grade has been determined due to pneumoconiosis under Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act” (Paragraph 3); and thereafter, Article 25 of the Addenda thereof (amended by Act No. 10304) provides that “The amended provisions of Articles 24 and 25 provide that “any person who first causes the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits after this Act enters into force shall be governed by the provisions of this Act.”

Meanwhile, according to Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 11569, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Revised Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service determined the type of pneumoconiosis of the relevant worker, whether there exists a merger certificate, and the degree of cardiopulmonary function (hereinafter “determination of pneumoconiosis”) following the deliberation by the Pneumoconiosis Deliberation Committee, and determined whether to pay medical care benefits in accordance with the determination of pneumoconiosis, whether to pay pneumoconiosis grade and pneumoconiosis compensation annuities accordingly (paragraph (2)), and whether to pay pneumoconiosis compensation annuities accordingly (Article 10) and the provision of attached Table 31 to the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2150, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2131, Jan. 1, 2012>

According to the above provisions, the method of pneumoconiosis is different from the concept and calculation method of consolation benefits before and after the revision. In the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, disability benefits and disability consolation benefits are paid to workers subject to disability benefits under the Pneumoconiosis Insurance Act, but after the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act was implemented, pneumoconiosis compensation annuities and pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits are paid to workers whose pneumoconiosis grade is determined pursuant to the pneumoconiosis grade determination under Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

However, in the case of an employee who is the subject of disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and received or is receiving disability benefits due to pneumoconiosis by the former pneumoconiosis method, it is necessary to take transitional measures due to the implementation of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.

Accordingly, Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by May 20, 2010) provides, “The amended provisions of Articles 36(1) and (2) and 91-3 shall apply to those who receive disability compensation annuities (including those whose cause for payment occurred before this Act enters into force) due to pneumoconiosis pursuant to the previous provisions, but where the amount of disability compensation annuities calculated pursuant to the previous provisions exceeds the amount of pneumoconiosis compensation annuities calculated pursuant to the same amended provisions, the disability compensation annuity shall continue to be paid pursuant to the previous provisions.” The amended provisions of Article 36(1) and (2) provide, “Where the pneumoconiosis disability grade determined pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is the same as the amount of the disability grade determined pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act before the revision, the amended provisions of Articles 36(1) and (2) and 91-3 provide, “Where the amount of disability compensation annuities determined pursuant to the previous provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is more than the amount of disability compensation annuity determined pursuant to the former provisions of the Pneumoconiosis.”

In addition, a worker who is the subject of disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and was the subject of disability benefits or survivors' consolation benefits due to pneumoconiosis under the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act is not the subject of pneumoconiosis damage consolation benefits under the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, and it is necessary to take transitional measures due to the implementation of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.

Accordingly, Article 4 of the Addenda (including May 20, 2010) (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that “If a worker who received disability consolation benefits pursuant to the previous provisions before this Act enters into force (including workers whose cause for payment occurred before this Act enters into force) has changed after this Act enters into force, disability consolation benefits shall be paid in accordance with the previous provisions,” and Article 5 provides that “if a worker who received disability consolation benefits pursuant to the previous provisions before this Act enters into force (including workers whose cause for payment occurred before this Act enters into force) dies of pneumoconiosis, survivors’ consolation benefits shall be paid in accordance with the previous provisions.”

B. Whether the provision of this case is applied

1) At the time of the first diagnosis of pneumoconiosis and the third grade of the disability grade, the Plaintiff has yet to introduce the system of disability compensation benefits due to pneumoconiosis at the time of the first diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, and after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, the pneumoconiosis grade was changed by the determination of grade 11. The instant provision only provides that “the disability grade is “the case where the disability grade is changed” but does not stipulate the requirement that the disability grade should be increased or the difference between the disability compensation benefits that should be paid should remain. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that disability compensation benefits should be paid in accordance with the previous provisions even when the disability grade is lowered. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to refuse the payment of disability compensation benefits on the ground that disability grade did not have any difference in the disability grade even though the disability grade was not determined by the third grade disability grade.

2) As a matter of principle, since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, it should be interpreted in such a way as to clarify the standard meaning of the law, and to ensure objective validity in its interpretation, and to maintain consistency with all the people as much as possible so as to avoid undermining legal stability. On the other hand, since positive law is established in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret that law can be the most reasonable solution appropriate for specific matters in applying the law in various cases that occur in society reality. In short, the purpose of the interpretation of the law is to faithfully interpret the ordinary meaning of the text used in the law to the extent that it does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, in principle, the interpretation of the law must be made within the extent that it does not compromise legal stability. To this end, the systematic and logical interpretation of the law should be made in compliance with the request for the interpretation of the above law by additionally adopting the method of interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the law, its legislative history and amendment history, harmony with the entire legal order, and relations with other statutes (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 20131317Da.

3) If the provision of this case is interpreted formally in accordance with the language and text, it is reasonable to view that the provision of this case applies to both cases where the pneumoconiosis grade is increased or lower than the previous disability grade if it is formally changed. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the provision of this case applies only to cases where the pneumoconiosis grade after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act is higher than the previous disability grade, and the difference in disability consolation benefits arising from the method of the former Pneumoconiosis is determined depending on the process of amendment of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act as seen earlier, and the following circumstances known to the purport of the entire pleadings.

① As seen earlier, Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended by May 20, 2010) provides that the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act shall apply to an employee who received or is receiving disability compensation benefits according to the former pneumoconiosis forecast, but shall pay disability benefits at a higher level than before and after the amendment. In light of such provision, it is natural to interpret the provision of this case as a provision to pay the difference in cases where disability benefits can be received more than the previous disability grade than the previous disability grade after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.

(2) There is no provision that disability compensation benefits may be paid in cases where the pneumoconiosis grade is the same as the water supply of an existing disability grade. However, unlike the cases where the pneumoconiosis grade differs from the water supply of an existing disability grade, it is against equity to treat the same as the cases where the pneumoconiosis grade differs from the water supply of an existing disability grade and to make duplicate payment

③ According to the table of the amended bill review report at the time of the enforcement of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, the Act stipulates that a person whose grade of disability is changed from among the persons who have judged the existing pneumoconiosis can receive "damage Compensation Benefits Change" according to the amended pneumoconiosis Prevention Act. According to this, the provision of this case does not aim to make duplicate payment of disability compensation benefits already paid or new payment of disability compensation benefits according to pneumoconiosis grade determined after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, but rather to prevent existing pneumoconiosis diagnosis persons from being treated unfavorably by the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.

④ Article 25(2) of the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act provides, “The disability consolation benefits under Article 24(1)2 shall be the amount equivalent to 60/100 of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits under pneumoconiosis in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on the basis of average wages at the time of retirement of the relevant worker under subparagraph 2 of Article 5 and Article 35(5) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act,” and Article 59(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides, “If the disability grade is changed as a result of the re-determination of a disability grade, etc. under paragraph (1), disability benefits or pneumoconiosis compensation annuities shall be paid according to the changed disability grade, etc.” In the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, if the disability grade is changed as a result of the re-determination of a disability grade, disability consolation benefits may be paid. Considering such circumstances and equity, Article 4 of the Addenda to the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act provides that the pneumoconiosis grade may receive disability consolation benefits even after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.

⑤ If a worker fails to receive disability compensation benefits under the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, even if the pneumoconiosis grade becomes lower than that of the previous disability grade, it would not be an issue of double payment of disability compensation benefits. However, unlike Article 2 of the Addenda of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1032, May 20, 2010) provides that, unlike cases where the pneumoconiosis grade differs from those where the previous disability grade is the same as that of the previous disability grade, the provision of this case only applies to cases where the previous disability grade is different from those of the previous disability grade, and where any worker who was unable to receive disability compensation benefits is identical to the previous disability grade after the revision of the previous provision, it would be impossible to receive disability compensation benefits pursuant to the provision of this case. Thus, it is unreasonable to treat otherwise only when the disability grade differs from that of the previous disability grade pursuant to the provision of this case

4) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff retired from office on October 1, 1979 and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis symptoms on October 15, 1979, and was determined at grade 3 at that time. After being determined at the first grade 3 disability grade, each pneumoconiosis type 0/0 ( normal) diagnosis at the pneumoconiosis health examination in 2010, 2011, and 0/1 (proof) pneumoconiosis type at the pneumoconiosis health examination in 2012, and was not determined at grade 11 of the pneumoconiosis grade in 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was determined at grade 11 of the pneumoconiosis grade in 2014. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have any difference in disability consolation benefits that may be additionally received since the pneumoconiosis disability grade determined after the enforcement of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act was lower than the previous disability grade. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(c) Whether the person is eligible for new disability benefits;

1) The Plaintiff asserts that his/her disability grade was subject to new disability benefits since he/she was subject to the 11th grade disability grade in the year 2010, 201, 0/0 (normal) judgment of each pneumoconiosis type in the pneumoconiosis health examination in 2011, and 0/1 (Proof) judgment of pneumoconiosis type in the pneumoconiosis health examination in 2012, and again became subject to the 11th grade disability grade in the year 2014.

2) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis (amended, May 20, 2010) provides, “The amended provisions of Articles 24 and 25 provide, “The provisions of this Act shall apply from the person for whom the first cause for the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits has occurred after the enforcement of this Act,” and “the person for whom the first cause for the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits has occurred after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, i.e., the person for whom the first cause for the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits has occurred after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, may be paid the “wastewater consolation benefits” under the amended pneumoconiosis Prevention Act. However, a person for whom the cause for the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits has already occurred before the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, i.e., a worker who has already been subject to pneumoconiosis consolation benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and is not subject to the payment of

3) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff retired on October 1, 1979 and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis symptoms on October 15, 1979, and was judged at class 3 of the pneumoconiosis disability grade around that time. However, the Plaintiff is not subject to the Revised Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act (it does not seem that the Plaintiff caused a new cause of payment for pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits different from the existing cause thereof). The instant provision provides that “the case where the pneumoconiosis disability grade changes after this Act enters into force,” and it does not include the case where the determination of a new disability grade is not accepted. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff does not fall under the subject of pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits under the amended pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, but does not fall under the subject of disability consolation benefits under the instant provision, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It

[Attachment]

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)