[1] The purport of Articles 80 and 87 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the meaning of "the same reason" under Article 80 (3) of the same Act

[2] The case holding that in a case where a worker Gap received a disposition of non-approval of medical care benefits on the ground that the insurance proceeds for self-physical accidents should be deducted from the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, in a case where the insurance company where the worker Gap was involved in the delivery business after driving a motor vehicle under the name of the business owner and received the insurance proceeds for self-physical accidents from the insurance company to which the above motor vehicle was subscribed, but the insurance proceeds for self-physical accidents were applied for the medical care benefits

[1] The purport of Article 80(1), the main sentence of Article 80(2), the main sentence of Article 80(3), the main text of Article 87(1) and Article 87(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) is to regulate the adjustment of the relationship between the two claims and the amount of compensation for losses or the amount of compensation for the prevention of double transfer.

Therefore, "the same reason" under Article 80 (3) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act refers to the case where the damage subject to industrial accident compensation insurance benefits and the damage subject to compensation pursuant to the Labor Standards Act, the Civil Act or other statutes are the same nature as the damage, and thus the industrial accident insurance benefits and compensation or compensation for damage are complementary.

[2] In a case where a worker Gap was involved in a traffic accident while driving and delivering a motor vehicle under the name of the business owner, and received the insurance money for his own physical accident from the insurance company, and then applied for medical care benefits for his occupational accident to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, but received the non-approval of medical care benefits on the ground that the insurance money for his own physical accident should be deducted from the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, the case affirming the judgment below that the insurance money paid to the worker due to his own physical accident insurance purchased by the business owner is not paid to the employer as the obligation to compensate for the damages.

[1] Articles 80(1), (2), and (3), and 87(1) and (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Articles 80(1), (2), and (3), and 87(1) and (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da11776 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2218)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu12203 decided November 22, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 80 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) provides that “where a beneficiary has received or is able to receive insurance benefits under this Act, an employer who is an insured person shall be exempted from liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason (paragraph (1)), and where the beneficiary has received the insurance benefits under this Act for the same reason, the employer shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of such amount (the first part of paragraph (2)).” The main part of paragraph (3) provides that “if the beneficiary has received or is able to receive the insurance benefits under this Act for the same reason, the Service shall not pay the insurance benefits under this Act within the limit of the amount converted into the amount of the insurance benefits under this Act according to the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes for the same reason by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree.” In addition, Article 87 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that “Where the Service has paid the insurance benefits to a third party due to an act of the same third party, the beneficiary shall be subrogated the claim for damages to the third party within the limit (the amount paid by the beneficiary).

The purport of each of the above provisions is to regulate the adjustment of the relationship between the two claims and the amount of compensation for losses or the amount of compensation for the prevention of double transfer of losses, inasmuch as an employee who has suffered losses or losses due to an industrial accident can exercise the right to claim for accident compensation and the right to receive industrial accident insurance benefits, and in addition, a claim for damages arising from

Therefore, “the same reason” as referred to in Article 80(3) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act refers to the case where the industrial accident insurance benefits and the compensation for losses are mutually complementary relationship, as the damages subject to industrial accident compensation insurance benefits and the damages are the same nature as those compensated by the Labor Standards Act, the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da11776 delivered on July 23, 191).

2. In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the insurance money received from the self-physical accident insurance purchased by the Plaintiff was not paid to the employer as a result of the performance of the obligation to compensate for damages, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on adjustment of the industrial accident insurance money and other compensation or damages as stipulated in Article 80(3) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)