(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.6.12. 선고 2014누40588 판결

2. On December 28, 2011, the Defendant’s decision to collect unjust enrichment of KRW 108,501,830, which the Plaintiff rendered to the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

This part of the court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This part of the court's explanation is the same as the 2. A. of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

In full view of the contents and purport of Article 84(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the unique characteristics of the revocation of beneficial administrative dispositions on social security administration, when imposing the amount equivalent to the amount of insurance benefits erroneously paid from the party who received the insurance benefits under Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the amount equivalent to the amount of insurance benefits erroneously paid shall be collected from the party who received the insurance benefits in accordance with the following circumstances: (a) whether there is a cause attributable to him/her intentionally or by gross negligence; (b) whether the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid can be easily recovered; and (c) whether the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid could be recovered from the person who received the insurance benefits through the disposition that collects the amount equivalent to the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid to him/her; and (d) the specific contents and degree of disadvantage that the party would suffer due to the disposition; and (e) the need of public interest to collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid from the party who received the insurance benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 31617Du167, Apr. 10, 20197).

In full view of the above facts and the purport of the arguments as a whole, the following circumstances, namely, ① the defendant decides whether to approve the deceased's application for survivors' benefits and funeral expenses, etc. through substantial examination in addition to the formal examination, and ② the defendant is responsible for the defendant's authority to investigate and determine whether the deceased's death constitutes occupational accidents; ② the defendant issued a rejection disposition against the plaintiff's application for the payment of survivors' benefits and funeral expenses; ② the defendant made a prior payment disposition through the decision of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee; the procedure for the request for the examination of industrial accident compensation insurance corresponds to the defendant's internal correction procedure that enables the defendant who made the disposition regarding insurance benefits, etc. to secure legality and consistency with the pertinent disposition through his own examination, and there is no reason for reliance on the plaintiff's legitimate and validity of the payment disposition; ③ the plaintiff was the senior citizen of 1946, who did not engage in any economic activity, and thus, the plaintiff is able to consume the insurance benefits already received by the prior payment without fault, living expenses, etc.; ④ The defendant's assertion that the defendant already paid the insurance benefits payment of this case for the reason.

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments, the Defendant’s instant collection disposition is unlawful for the aforementioned reasons.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the collection disposition of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner, so the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted due to the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions shall be revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's claim.