2020Guhap63887. Revocation of revocation of the non-payment of temporary layoff benefits

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

March 11, 2021

April 8, 2021

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of late payment of temporary layoff benefits against the Plaintiff on April 30, 2019 and the lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits rendered to the Plaintiff on March 9, 2020 shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Parts of the plaintiff;

1) From March 8, 1963 to May 14, 191, Plaintiff worked as light source. On October 1, 2003, Plaintiff received lump-sum disability compensation benefits on June 2, 2004, upon receiving the determination of grade 13 of pneumoconiosis disability as a result of precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis.

2) The former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the former Act; hereinafter referred to as the "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act") provided that the payment of temporary disability compensation benefits (Article 36(1)2 and Article 52) or injury-disease compensation annuity (Article 36(1)6 and Article 66) should be made if a worker is under medical care, such as other occupational accidents, but the proviso of Article 36(1) and Article 91-3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "New Act") were amended on May 20, 2010 and enforced on November 21, 2010.

3) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Industrial Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Rule”) provides that a person who has received lump-sum disability compensation benefits due to pneumoconiosis pursuant to the former Act shall also be subject to the new Act; however, Article 2 of the same Act provides that only the basic pension amount shall be paid out of the pneumoconiosis compensation annuities pursuant to the new Act (Paragraph 3), and that even if the pneumoconiosis grade is changed after the new Act enters into force, the amount of pneumoconiosis disability pension equivalent to the difference between the changed pneumoconiosis disability grade and the previous disability grade shall be calculated and paid (Paragraph 4). From December 2, 2010 to June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff received the basic pension pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Addenda of the previous Act, and the disability grade raised to Grade 7 after the new Act enters into force, thereby receiving pneumoconiosis compensation annuities added to the amount of pneumoconiosis disability pension from July 2015.

4) At the time of the enforcement of the new Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2420, Nov. 21, 2010), Article 3 of the Addenda of the instant case determined a transitional measure to pay temporary disability compensation benefits and injury-disease compensation annuities, such as the former Act, until the medical care, etc. is completed, to a person who was receiving the medical care or additional medical care (hereinafter “medical care, etc.”) due to pneumoconiosis. The Plaintiff received the medical care from March 8, 2016, after the enforcement of the new Act.

With respect to the payment of temporary layoff benefits and injury-disease compensation annuities for a person who has received medical care or additional medical care due to pneumoconiosis at the time the Act enters into force (including a person whose cause for payment has occurred before this Act enters into force), the amended provisions of Articles 36 (1) and (2) and 91-3 shall be denied, and Articles 52 through 56 and 66 through 69 shall be applied until the medical care or additional medical care is completed.

5) On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a claim for payment of temporary layoff benefits or injury-disease compensation annuities under the former Act with the Defendant. On April 30, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of temporary layoff benefits or injury-disease compensation annuity pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the instant case on the ground that “from March 8, 2016, after the enforcement of the new Act, the Plaintiff is receiving medical care with pneumoconiosis mergers and is not an eligible person for temporary layoff benefits or injury-disease compensation benefits.”

(b)the plaintiff, the part;

1) The Plaintiff is his child. On January 5, 2004, the Plaintiff was judged as having grade 13 of pneumoconiosis disability as a result of precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis.

2) Article 36(1)5 and Article 62 of the former Act stipulates that the bereaved family members of a worker who died from pneumoconiosis shall be paid survivors’ benefits as if the worker died due to other occupational causes (Article 36(1)5 and Article 62), and the bereaved family’s benefits shall be either the survivors’ compensation annuity or the lump-sum survivors’ compensation annuity, but the bereaved family’s compensation benefits shall be paid if there is no person eligible to receive the survivors’ compensation annuity or if there is a person eligible to receive the survivors’ compensation annuity (Article 62(2) and (3)). However, the proviso to Article 36(1) of the former Act and Article 91-4 of the former Act changed the bereaved family’s benefits for pneumoconiosis to be abolished

3) Article 4(1) of the Addenda of the instant case determined a transitional measure to pay the survivors’ compensation annuity or lump-sum survivors’ compensation annuity in cases where a person who received the instant medical care, etc. at the time of the enforcement of the new Act (amended by November 21, 2010) died due to pneumoconiosis while providing continuous medical care, etc. after the enforcement of the new Act. On October 27, 2017, which was subsequent to the enforcement of the new Act, the person died on February 5, 2018 during the period of medical care (hereinafter referred to as “person B”).

Article 4 (Transitional Measures concerning the Payment of Survivors' Benefits Due to Pneumoconiosis) (1) Where a person who has received medical care or additional medical care due to pneumoconiosis as at the time this Act enters into force, dies due to pneumoconiosis while continuing medical care or additional medical care after this Act enters into force, the provisions of Articles 62 through 65 shall apply to the payment of the survivors' compensation annuity or lump-sum survivors' compensation annuity to him/her, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 36 (1) and (2) and 91-4.

4) On February 17, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under the former Act with the Defendant. On March 9, 2020, the Defendant rendered the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits for reasons that the Plaintiff did not receive the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits since the Plaintiff did not receive the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits at the time of the enforcement of the new Act, and thus, the Plaintiff did not receive the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Addenda of the instant case (up to the following, hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds that Articles 3 and 4(1)1 of the Addenda of this case, which set forth transitional measures for the payment of temporary layoff benefits, injury-disease compensation annuities, and bereaved family benefits after the enforcement of the new law, violates the Constitution for the following reasons.

1) It violates the principle of trust protection by infringing on the trust that a pneumoconiosis worker or his/her bereaved family member would be entitled to temporary layoff benefits, injury-disease compensation annuities, or survivor benefits under the former Act, who did not receive medical care at the time of the enforcement of the new Act even after receiving the determination of pneumoconiosis disability before the enforcement of the new Act

2) The payment of temporary layoff benefits and injury-disease compensation annuities depending on whether the new law enters into force, violates the principle of equality by discriminating against the bereaved family members in relation to the payment of lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits and the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits.

3) It infringes on the property rights of pneumoconiosis workers or their bereaved family members who did not receive medical care at the time of the enforcement of the new law and the right to live a decent life.

B. Since it is difficult to view the relevant provisions of the instant case as unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Order 2013HunBa12, 60, Feb. 27, 2014) as being in violation of the Constitution, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.

1) A pneumoconiosis worker who provides medical care after the enforcement of the new Act is unable to receive temporary disability compensation benefits and injury-disease compensation benefits, and the bereaved family members of a pneumoconiosis worker who died after the enforcement of the new Act are unable to receive lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits. However, in principle, it shall be allowed by the legislation that limits the application of the previous Act in cases where the pneumoconiosis disability was recognized before the new Act enters into force but the pneumoconiosis did not occur until the new Act enters into force. However, it imposes restrictions on the legislative authority from the perspective of protecting trust requesting the continuous application of the previous Act.

Before the enforcement of the new Act, the issue was that the continuous increase in the amount of insurance benefits was difficult, and there was a problem that the amount of compensation between a pneumoconiosis worker who received temporary layoff benefits and an injury-disease compensation annuity without receiving temporary layoff benefits, and there was a need to prepare measures to stabilize the livelihood of a pneumoconiosis worker who is unable to make a living solely with lump-sum disability compensation benefits. The new Act, regardless of whether to pay temporary layoff benefits and injury-disease compensation annuities to a pneumoconiosis worker instead of paying them, has paid pneumoconiosis compensation annuities to prevent the prolongedization of medical care and increase the amount of livelihood compensation for the pneumoconiosis worker. With the limited scale of industrial accident compensation insurance and prevention fund, it is difficult to reduce the amount of other insurance benefits or welfare benefits if one kind of insurance benefits increases rapidly, and thus, it is difficult to consider the need to abolish the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits system and to maintain trust and balance between the new Act and the new Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis Benefits to the extent that the new Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis and the new Act would continue to be implemented.

2) As to the payment of temporary layoff benefits and injury-disease compensation benefits, the relevant provision of the instant case discriminates between the pneumoconiosis workers who were receiving the medical care at the time of the enforcement of the new Act, and between the survivors of the pneumoconiosis workers who were receiving the medical care at the time of the enforcement of the new Act with respect to the payment of lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits, and between the survivors of the pneumoconiosis workers who were receiving the medical care at the time of the enforcement of the new Act. However, the industrial accident insurance entitlement is recognized as one of the social security benefits by the State, inasmuch as the State determines the contents and scope in consideration of the financial burden and overall level of social security, etc., and thus, a broad range of legislative formation is recognized. The legislators abolished the temporary layoff benefits, injury-disease compensation annuity, and lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits system in order to reduce the long-term care focused on hospitalization and enhance the equality of the insurance benefits between the pneumoconiosis workers. Moreover, trust in the temporary layoff benefits and the survivors’ benefits of the pneumoconiosis workers who were receiving the medical care at the time of the enforcement of the new Act. It cannot be viewed the principle of equality

3) In a case where the requirements for entitlement to receive benefits, such as insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act with a pneumoconiosis and bereaved family members, are statutoryly established, it cannot be deemed a property right guaranteed by the Constitution before meeting such statutory requirements and is merely a part of the expected interest that can acquire entitlement to receive benefits. The Plaintiff started medical care after the enforcement of the new law. Since the Plaintiff was a deceased person and became a bereaved family member, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have satisfied the statutory requirements for claiming temporary disability compensation, injury-disease compensation annuity, or lump-sum compensation for survivors under the former Act at the time of the enforcement of the new law, and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot be guaranteed the expectation of pecuniary benefits that are not included in the scope of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution, i.e., the Plaintiffs’ property rights cannot be deemed to have

Under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the legislative body has the legislative discretion to independently regulate benefits by taking into account the purpose and necessity of providing benefits and the financial burden of the operation of the industrial accident compensation insurance in determining the scope of benefits as benefits of a social security nature. Therefore, it is against the Constitution only if the State does not completely enact the legislation on livelihood protection in violation of the social security obligation under Article 34 of the Constitution, or where the content thereof is manifestly unreasonable and clearly deviates from the scope of discretion permissible under the Constitution. Workers with pneumoconiosis can receive disability compensation annuities, such as other occupational accidents before the enforcement of the new law. However, even if the disability grade can be received prior to the enforcement of the new law, it is difficult to receive the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity regardless of all kinds of medical care in the first through third after the new law, and it is difficult to additionally receive the basic pension benefits, thereby expanding livelihood compensation. Moreover, the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis of Pneumoconiosis of Pneumoconiosis and the Protection, etc. of Workers with Pneumoconiosis Workers’ Benefits to ensure the minimum compensation for pneumoconiosis workers and their survivors and the Plaintiffs’ right to receive compensation benefits in lieu of the industrial accident compensation benefits.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as there is no reasonable ground.

1) The plaintiffs claim that Article 2 (3) and (4) of the Addenda of this case is unconstitutional, but the plaintiff received the benefits under Article 2 (3) and (4) of the Addenda of this case (1. 3) (3). The disposition of this case is in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 (1) of the Addenda of this case, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is deemed to be related to the relevant Addenda of this case.