[1] In a case where the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid the survivors' benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to a beneficiary as a result of the worker's death due to an occupational accident, whether the insured's liability for damages against other co-inheritors who are not the beneficiary is extinguished under Article 48 (2) of the

[2] The method of deducting the bereaved family benefits paid to the beneficiary under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from the damage claim equivalent to the deceased's lost income inherited by co-inheritors from the worker who died from an occupational accident

[1] Even though the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid the survivors' benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) to the beneficiaries following the worker's death due to an occupational accident, since the damage claim inherited by the deceased's co-inheritors, who are not the beneficiaries, and the right to receive the survivors' benefits, cannot be acknowledged as a mutually complementary relationship due to the difference between the beneficiary and the beneficiary's right to receive the survivors' benefits, the payment of the survivors' benefits to the beneficiary cannot be said to be extinguished as a matter of course by Article 48 (2) of the same Act.

[2] It shall be interpreted that all damage claims equivalent to the deceased's lost income arising from the death of an employee due to an occupational accident are jointly inherited by the co-inheritors according to their respective shares of inheritance. The survivors' benefits paid by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service to beneficiaries under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) shall be limited to the amount of damage claims equivalent to the lost income inherited by the pertinent beneficiary, and it shall be interpreted that the amount of the survivors' benefits should be deducted from the damage claims corresponding to the lost income of the deceased, and the remainder of the damage claims shall not be interpreted that the co-inheritors jointly inherited in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance.

[1] Article 4 subparag. 3 (see current Article 5 subparag. 3), Article 43 (1) (see current Article 62 (1)), and Article 48 (2) (see current Article 80 (2)) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 4 subparag. 3 (see current Article 5 subparag. 3), Article 43 (1) (see current Article 62 (1)), Article 48 (2) (see current Article 80 (2)), and Article 54 (1) (see current Article 87 (1)) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 75Da1098 decided Dec. 27, 197 (Gong1978, 1055), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2581 decided Jun. 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1139) (Change)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Yyeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2007Na12326 decided January 31, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a disaster occurred due to another person’s act and the employee dies, the damage claim that the relevant employee has against the perpetrator is jointly inherited to the inheritor. On the other hand, where the accident occurred due to an occupational accident, the beneficiary (hereinafter “beneficiary”) among the bereaved family members who are his spouse (including a person in a de facto marital relationship), children, parents, grandchildren, grandparents, grandparents, or siblings under Articles 4 subparag. 3, 13, and 43(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) receives survivors’ benefits from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (hereinafter “Corporation”).

In addition, insurance benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating an employee for any loss arising from an occupational accident that the employer is obliged to compensate under the Labor Standards Act from the standpoint of the insurer. In addition, in addition to the nature of the employee’s livelihood security, the employer’s liability insurance for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act is not limited to the nature of liability insurance for civil damage liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2928, Oct. 13, 1981; 93Da3826, May 24, 1994). In addition, Articles 43, 43-2, 43-3, and 43-4 of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating for the employee’s loss from the standpoint of the insurer. Thus, the entitlement to survivors’ benefits, not from the heir’s own right to receive survivors’ benefits, but from the standpoint of inheritance under the Civil Act, shall not be included in the inherited property system.

According to this, in a case where the co-inheritors inherits the deceased's damage claim due to the death of the worker caused by an occupational accident, while the beneficiary under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act receives the bereaved family's benefit from the Corporation, even if the beneficiary can be deemed to have paid the bereaved family's benefit by the payment of the bereaved family's benefit, it cannot be deemed that the transfer has been made even to the damage claim inherited by other co-inheritors, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that other co-inheritors have received the same benefit because other co-inheritors have received the damages for the same purpose.

On the other hand, Article 48(2) of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that "where a beneficiary has received insurance benefits for the same cause under this Act, the insured shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of such amount."

Although insurance benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act do not have the nature as civil damages, this provision is interpreted to the effect that the insured is exempted from liability for damages within the limit of the insurance benefits amount in order to prevent unjust enrichment by double transfer in cases where the insurance benefits and damages are mutually complementary relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da61703, Apr. 25, 1995; 2007Du4254, Jul. 24, 2008). In light of such purport of the provision, the mutual complementary relationship should exist between the damages subject to insurance benefits and the damages subject to civil damage compensation under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and the entitlement to insurance benefits and the subject to civil damage compensation under the Civil Act should also exist.

Therefore, even though the Service paid the bereaved family's benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act to a beneficiary due to the death of a worker caused by an occupational accident, the damage claim inherited by the deceased's co-inheritors, who are not the beneficiary, and the right to receive the bereaved family's benefits, are different from each other, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a complementary relationship. Thus, it cannot be said that the liability for damages to other co-inheritors, who are not the beneficiary, naturally extinguished by the payment of bereaved family's

In addition, the main text of Article 54(1) of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides, “Where the Corporation has paid insurance benefits to a third party due to an act by a third party, it shall subrogate the claim for damages to the third party within the limit of the amount of benefits.” This is reasonable to deem that the Corporation may subrogate the claim for damages to the third party within the scope of the amount of benefits, on the premise that only in cases where the insurance benefits and damages are mutually complementary relations, the claims for damages to a third party can be compensated and extinguished by the payment of insurance benefits, and that the payment of insurance benefits can actually be subrogated to the claim within the extent of the extinguished amount. Therefore, in cases where a worker has paid benefits to a beneficiary as a result of the death of an occupational accident, the Corporation has paid the benefits to a beneficiary, the amount of damages that the Corporation may subrogate under the above provision is limited to the amount equivalent to the actual income of the third party inherited by the deceased within the limit of the amount of bereaved family's benefits (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2948, Jul. 21, 1987; 2000Da45419, Apr. 12, 2).

In full view of the legal nature of the insurance benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the legal status of the beneficiary, the legal nature of the beneficiary, the exemption of liability for damages arising from the insurance benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and the legal principles of subrogation of the claim for damages by subrogation, etc., all of the damage claims equivalent to the deceased’s lost income arising from the death of the worker due to an occupational accident shall be jointly inherited by the co-inheritors according to their respective shares of inheritance. The survivors’ benefits paid by the Corporation to the beneficiary under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act shall be construed to be deducted only from the damage claim equivalent to the lost income inherited by the beneficiary within the extent of the damage claim corresponding to the lost income inherited by the beneficiary. On the contrary, the remaining damage claim shall not be interpreted to be jointly inherited by the co-inheritors after deducting the survivors’ benefits from the damage claim corresponding to the lost income of the deceased and then jointly inherited by the co-inheritors in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance. However, this is only a de facto benefit to the deceased’s co-inheritors, and it shall not be interpreted that there are other co-inheritors’s rights to claim the remainder of inheritance benefits.

Unlike this, in a case where a beneficiary of an industrial accident compensation insurance is paid to a worker as a result of the worker's death due to an occupational accident, even if the beneficiary is not the deceased's heir, or when one of the co-inheritors is not passed, the perpetrator is exempted from civil liability within the limit of the bereaved family's benefit. The co-inheritors held to the effect that, after deducting the bereaved family's benefit paid to the deceased from the damage claim equivalent to the lost income of the deceased, only the remainder of the damage claim is jointly inherited at the ratio of their respective shares of inheritance, the Supreme Court Decisions 75Da1098 Decided December 27, 197; 86Meu2581 Decided June 9, 1987, etc. are modified to the extent inconsistent with this Opinion.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case, the plaintiff sought the payment of the acquisition amount by asserting that, as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 died as a result of the occupational accident of this case, the beneficiary of the bereaved family benefits under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, paid the bereaved family benefits to the non-party 3 and the non-party 2's wife non-party 4, who is the beneficiary of the bereaved family benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and that he succeeded to the above deceased's damage claim corresponding to the lost income of each of the above deceased's co-inheritors except the above beneficiary, were transferred. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the amount calculated by converting the bereaved family benefits received by each of the above beneficiaries into the lump-sum survivors' benefits as the lump-sum survivors' lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits exceeds the damages amount equivalent to

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above deceased non-party 1 and non-party 2's damage claim equivalent to the lost income is jointly inherited by each co-inheritors in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance. The lump-sum survivors' benefits paid by the above beneficiary non-party 3 and non-party 4 from the plaintiff are only deducted from each damage claim within the limit of the damage claim equivalent to the lost income inherited by the plaintiff. Thus, in determining the existence and scope of the damage claim equivalent to the lost income claimed by the above deceased's co-inheritors except the above beneficiary 3 and non-party 4, the court below judged otherwise. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the deduction of the bereaved family benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)