[1] In a case where a person who received insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to a third party's illegal act waives his claim for damages against a third party or waives his/her obligation to pay the insurance benefits, the scope of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation is exempted from the obligation to pay the insurance benefits, and whether the lump-sum disability compensation and disability compensation annuity

[2] In a case where a worker who suffered from a third party's tort was able to receive damages equivalent to the lost income in excess of the lump sum payment for disability benefits from a third party, but agreed to receive only part of the damages and waive the remainder of the damages, the case holding that the worker's obligation to pay disability benefits is extinguished in whole, regardless of whether the worker has selected any of the lump sum compensation for disability benefits

[1] In case where a beneficiary of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is liable for payment of insurance benefits due to a tort committed by a third party, in light of the legislative purport and contents of Article 54(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which aims to prevent the beneficiary of insurance benefits from being transferred to another person by double transfer of insurance benefits and damages by a third party, and to prevent the third party from evading its liability and to secure insurance financing, if the beneficiary of insurance benefits is to receive certain amount of money related to his own property compensation from a third party and to waive or exempt the remainder of the claim, or to exempt the third party from the obligation to compensate for damages without receiving it entirely, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation shall be exempted from the obligation to pay insurance benefits within the extent of the genuine amount of property damage (limited to the scope related to the item related to the insurance benefits) that the beneficiary is entitled to receive from a third party due to the disaster. Since disability compensation benefits, which are disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, are different from the payment method, it should be treated equally in determining the scope of obligation to pay disability benefits.

[2] In a case where a worker who suffered from a third party's tort was able to receive damages equivalent to the lost income in excess of the lump sum payment for disability benefits from a third party, but agreed to receive only part of the damages and waive the remainder of the damages, the case holding that the worker's obligation to pay disability benefits ceases to exist, regardless of whether the worker has selected any of the lump sum compensation for disability benefits and disability

[1] Articles 48 (see current Article 52) and 54 (see current Article 58) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Articles 42 (see current Article 40), 48 (see current Article 52), and 54 (see current Article 58) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da2119 Decided February 14, 1978 (Gong1978Sang, 1068), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du918 Decided August 18, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2018), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6268 Decided July 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1866), Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2004Hun-Ba97 Decided November 24, 2005 (Hun-Ba10, 122)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu10717 delivered on June 14, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the legislative purport and contents of Article 54(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in case where a beneficiary of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is liable for payment of insurance benefits due to a tort committed by a third party, if the beneficiary of insurance benefits receives insurance benefits in duplicate or transferred by compensation by a third party, and if the beneficiary of insurance benefits intends to prevent evasion of liability and secure insurance financing by a third party, or if the beneficiary of insurance benefits paid certain amount of money in relation to his/her own property compensation from a third party and gives up or waives the remainder of claims, or exempt a third party from all of his/her property liability without receiving it, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service shall be deemed to be exempted from the obligation to pay insurance benefits (limited to the scope related to the insurance benefits items) within the limit of 106Da2119, Feb. 14, 1978; 2000Du16818, Aug. 18, 2000; 200.

Therefore, in a case where an employee who was affected by a third party’s tort receives a certain amount of money in relation to damages equivalent to the lost income from a third party and gives up or waives the remainder of the claim, or exempt a third party from the liability for damages equivalent to the actual income from a third party without being paid at all, if the amount of damages equivalent to the actual income that the employee can receive from a third party exceeds the amount of disability benefits (the amount equivalent to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits) payable by the employee, regardless of whether the employee selected either of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits and disability compensation annuity, the obligation to pay disability benefits is all extinguished, and the proviso to Article 42(3) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not change on the ground that the proviso to Article 42(3) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's obligation to pay disability benefits is all extinguished, since the plaintiff received only 120,000,000 won from the non-party and agreed not to claim remainder of damages, while the amount of damages equivalent to the lost income that the plaintiff could have been paid by the non-party who was the perpetrator at the time of the agreement in this case is calculated as KRW 288,95,873, while the amount of lump-sum disability benefits that the defendant could have received from the defendant is merely KRW 147,290,702, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the termination or extinguishment of the obligation to pay disability

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)