logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 1990. 2. 21. 선고 88구668 판결
[보험급여청구기각판정취소][판례집불게재]
Plaintiff

Stick Stacks

Defendant

The head of permanent local labor office

Conclusion of Pleadings

January 17, 1990

Text

The defendant's disposition of additional payment of temporary layoff benefits against the plaintiff on April 20, 198 and the disposition of additional payment of disability benefits on April 21, 198 shall be revoked respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition of temporary layoff benefits and disability benefit site payment;

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 을제3호증(보험급여원부), 을제4호증(계약서), 을제5호증, 을제7호증의 1(각 진정서처리 회신), 갑제9호증, 을제13호증과 각 같다), 을제10, 12호증, 을제14호증의 2(각 진정서), 을제11호증(진정서처리 회시 기안 공문), 을제14호증의 1(민원사안처리 요청), 을제15호증, 을제17, 31호증의 각 1(각 지급결의서), 을제16호증의 1, 을제17호증의 2(각 장해급여사정서), 을제16호증의 2(장해보상 청구서), 3(장해급여 영수증), 을제17호증의 4(진단서), 을제25, 26호증(각 문답서), 을제30호증(진정서처리 중간 회신), 을제31호증의 2(휴업급여 사정서), 3(휴업급여 청구서)의 각 기재와 변론의 전취지를 보아보면, 원고는, 석포제련소 산화철안료 프랜트건설공사를 시공하는 소외 영풍기계공업주식회사로 부터 공사일부를 하도급 받은 소외 주식회사 남양계전과 사이에, 1986.10.4. 계약금액을 금2,100,000원, 공사내용을 산화철 제2공장 케이블 트레이(CABLE TRAY) 설치 및 케이블 포설공사로 하는 이른바 "품떼기 계약"을 체결하고, 이에 따라 작업인부를 고용하여 위 공사를 하던중, 같은해 11.16. 11:00경 케이블트레이 교정을 하다가 받침목이 부러지면서 약 3.5미터 높이의 다리 위에서 추락하여 우측종골복합골절등의 상해를 입게 된 사실, 이에 따라 원고는 사고일로 부터 1987.9.12. 치료가 종결될때까지 입원 및 통원치료를 받고 합계 금716,500원 상당의 식대 및 개호비를 지급받아 산업재해보상보험법에 따른 요양급여보상등을 받는 한편, 1986.12.10. 피고로 부터 1986.11.17.부터 같은달 30.까지의 14일분에 해당하는 휴업급여금 110,250원을 수령한 것을 비롯하여, 1987.10.까지 사이에 모두 8회에 걸쳐 합계 금2,315,220원의 휴업급여금을 수령하였고, 1987.10.5. 피고로 부터 장해등급 제10급 제10호의 판정에 따른 장해급여 금3,543,750원을 수령한 사실, 그런데 원고는, 피고가 원고의 1일 평균임금을 금13,125원으로 산정하여 위 휴업급여금 및 장해급여금을 지급한데 대하여 불만을 품고, 1987.12.10. 피고에 대하여, 품떼기계약상의 도급금액인 금2,100,000원에서 인건비로 지출한 금1,042,500원을 공제한 나머지 금1,057,500원이 원고가 작업한 32일간의 총임금이므로, 이에 기하여 계산한 금33,046원을 원고의 1일 평균임금으로 인정하여 추가보상을 하여 달라는 내용의 진정서를 제출하였으나, 같은달 29. 피고로 부터, 원고가 주장하는 총임금에는 노임도급이익금, 경비등이 포함되어 있어 이를 근로기준법상의 임금으로 볼수 없다는 이유로, 원고의 요구를 거절하는 회신을 받았고, 1988.1.27. 피고에게 같은 이유로 평균임금을 금31,711원으로 인정하여 달라는 진정서를 다시 제출하였다가, 같은해 3.3. 피고로 부터, 원고의 요구는 이유 없으나 원고와 주식회사 남양계전을 상대로 조사한 결과 원고의 통상 임금이 금15,000원임이 확인된다 하여 평균임금이 통상임금 보다 적으므로 그 차액분을 청구하도록 하라는 내용의 회신을 받았으며, 1988.3.3. 다시 대통령비서실에 평균임금을 금30,000원으로 인정하여 달라는 진정서를 제출한 결과, 위 진정서가 같은해 4.6. 피고에게 이첩되어, 같은달 14. 피고는 원고에게, 원고가 주장하는 평균임금에 따른 차액분 상당을 기재한 휴업급여 및 장해급여 청구서를 제출하면 피고가 인정하는 금액을 추가지급하겠으며, 피고의 차액분지급에 대하여 불복이 있을때에는 산업재해보상보험업무및심사에관한법률에 따라 심사청구를 할수 있다는 내용의 회신을 다시 보낸 사실, 이에 따라 원고는 1988.4.19. 그의 1일 평균임금을 금30,000원으로 하여 계산한 휴업급여금 차액분 금2,997,000원 {(30,000-13,125)×296×(60/100)}을 청구하였으나, 피고는 같은달 20. 통상임금 15,000원을 원고의 평균임금으로 조정하여 그 차액분에 해당하는 금337,500원 {(15,000-13,125)×300×(60/100)}만을 추가지급하기로 결정함과 동시에 나머지 청구금액 (2,997,000-337,500=2,659,500)은 이유 없어 이를 지급하지 않기로 결정하여, 원고는 같은날 추가휴업급여금으로 금337,500원만을 수령하였고, 또한 원고는 1988.4.19. 그의 1일 평균임금을 금30,000원으로 기재하여 장해보상금 차액분을 청구하였으나, 피고는 같은달 21. 역시 통상임금 15,000원과의 차액분인 금506,250원 {(15,000-13,125)×270}을 추가지급하기로 결정함과 동시에 나머지 청구금액 (15,000×270=4,050,000)은 이유 없어 지급하지 않기로 결정하여, 원고는 같은달 23. 추가장해급여금으로 금506,250원만을 수령한 사실을 인정할수 있고, 달리 반증이 없다.

2. Whether a disposition of temporary layoff benefits and disability benefits is legitimate;

The plaintiff (1) The plaintiff is a total wage of 25 days remaining after deducting 1,042,500 won from 2,100,000 won, which is the contract amount under the contract of lurgical instruments, as labor cost. The plaintiff's average wage per day is 42,296 won which is calculated by dividing the total wage by the working days pursuant to Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and (2) if it is impossible to calculate the average wage because the contract amount of lurgical instruments includes labor cost, expenses, and profit of the plaintiff, and if it is impossible to calculate the average wage with respect to the plaintiff, it shall be calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the average wage of daily workers as provided in Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff's application for temporary layoff benefits for 10 years or more after the fact-finding survey report publicly notified by the Minister of Labor pursuant to the above provision is 100 days or more, and the plaintiff's application for temporary layoff benefits for 100 days or more.

Therefore, under Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act, the term "wages" means all money and valuables, regardless of their terms, paid by an employer to a worker as an object of his work. Article 19 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means the total amount of wages paid to the worker for three months prior to the date on which the cause for calculating his average wages occurred, which is the limit of the total number of days during that three months prior to the date of employment. Paragraph (2) of the same Article shall also apply mutatis mutandis where the amount calculated under paragraph (1) is less than that of the ordinary wages. Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be the average wages. Article 5 of the same Decree shall be the average wages by business or occupation. Article 5 of the same Decree shall be the Ministry of Labor for daily workers. Article 3 (2) of the same Act shall be the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 3 (2) of the same Act shall be the average wages, average wages or ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined separately between the employer and the worker."

However, if we gather the purport of the Plaintiff’s above evidence No. 4 and oral argument, the name of the construction work between the Plaintiff and the head of the field office representing the Namyang Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. on October 4, 1986 is an excessive amount of construction work under the proviso of the Plaintiff’s Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to calculate the contract price for the construction work from October 5, 1986 to October 25, 1986. The contract price is KRW 2,100,00. The Plaintiff’s "(the Plaintiff) will faithfully perform the same construction work as the contract price. If it is not possible for the Plaintiff to calculate the contract price for the construction work under the premise that the amount of average wages cannot be calculated under the premise that the contract price for the construction work would be calculated under the premise that it would be unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s average wages to be calculated under the premise that it would be unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s average wages to be calculated under the premise that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to do so.

Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that the term “ordinary wage” in the Act and this Decree means an hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount to be paid to an employee regularly, uniformly, or for total labor. The former part of paragraph (2) provides that, when the ordinary wage under the provision of paragraph (1) is calculated as an hourly wage, the ordinary wage under the provision of paragraph (1) shall be as follows. The former part of paragraph (6) provides that, with respect to wages determined by a contract for work, the total amount of wages calculated by a contract for work shall be divided by the total number of working hours in the calculation period of the relevant wage. If the contract for work is a contractor, there is no room for the Plaintiff to determine ordinary wage due to the lack of fixed amount of hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount, which is determined by the said contract for work, the amount of wages under the provision of paragraph (1) above or contract for employment of witnesses employed by the Plaintiff at least 0 days before the date of the contract for work, which the Plaintiff’s testimony and testimony were not accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's final wage or 15,00 won was not determined as the plaintiff's average wage or 20 won for the above 7 years of accident and whether the average wage for the plaintiff was reasonable as the basis for calculating disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act or in this case, subparagraph 4 above, subparagraph 6-1, 7-1, 2-1, 2-1, 8-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, and 2-1, and 9-1, 7-1, and 9-1, 7-1, and 9-2, the defendant's expert wage for each of the above 9-1,6-1,6-1,6-1,6-1,6-2, and 9-2, the defendant's expert wage for each of the above 9-2,6-1,6-1,6-1,6-2, and the testimony and arguments of the witness's work experience for each of the above 9-2,1983.

Therefore, with respect to the application for the instant additional temporary layoff benefits and disability benefits for which the Plaintiff’s daily average wage is KRW 30,000, the Defendant recognized the daily average wage as KRW 15,000, which is below the above recognition amount, and with respect to the portion of the application for temporary layoff benefits and disability benefits in excess of the above recognition amount, it shall be deemed that it was unlawful to dispose of the site wage by deeming that it

3. Conclusion

Therefore, on April 20, 198, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition on the ground that the defendant's additional payment of temporary layoff benefits on April 21, 198 as well as the additional payment of disability benefits is illegal.

February 21, 1990

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)

arrow