Whether or not a victim who has received benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and failed to take the procedure of objection under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act may claim compensation for damages.

The victim who received benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but did not take the procedure of objection under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act, may claim the compensation for the remainder of damages except for the said benefits.

Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant corporation

Seoul and Criminal District Court Incheon (68A772) in the first instance trial.

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant who ordered the plaintiff 1 to pay gold 60,204 won, plaintiff 2, and 3 each gold 50,408 won, plaintiffs 4, and 5 respectively to the plaintiff 40,204 won, each of them to the plaintiff 6, and 7 respectively, in excess of the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from July 31, 1966 to the full payment system, and the part against the defendant who ordered the plaintiff 1 to pay gold 20,000 and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum per annum from July 31, 196 to the full payment system,

2. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 282,664 won, the amount of 166,332 won, the amount of 50% per annum from July 31, 1966 to the full payment of 186,332 won, and each of 166,332 won, the amount of 50% per annum to the plaintiff 4,64 won, the plaintiff 6, and 7 respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. A provisional execution may be effected against paragraph (1).

1. Revocation of the part against the defendant in the original judgment, and each plaintiff's claim concerning the same revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. The defendant company is an enterprise producing steel products using solid steel as its main raw material. The defendant, among those scrap metal purchased by the defendant, selected it from the scrap metal without explosion and transferred it to the military powder treatment team, employing the deceased non-party 1 on June 18, 1965. The above non-party, on July 30, 1966, purchased from the defendant's workplace to the defendant company's premises without any dispute between the parties concerned, and the non-party 4-2 (Death Report) of the above fact that the non-party 4-3 (the non-party's death Report) of the above fact that the non-party 1 purchased the above chemical material from the defendant's office and the non-party 2-3 (the non-party's testimony that the non-party 2-3 (the non-party's death report)'s death and the non-party 3 (the non-party's testimony that the above non-party 1 had no legal duty to take account of the above facts that the non-party 1's witness's auction.

2. The defendant, on September 28, 1966, was paid KRW 428,570 as survivors' benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as of September 28, 1966, and KRW 38,151 as funeral benefits. Since the above plaintiff did not raise an objection under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act with respect to the above benefits, the plaintiffs' claim for damages on the ground of the accident is unjust, since the plaintiff 1, the wife of the non-party 1, received the above benefits of the defendant, and did not raise an objection against it, the plaintiff 1, the wife of the non-party 1, cannot claim compensation for the remaining damages except the above benefits from the damages caused by the accident caused by the defendant's tort, and since the plaintiff's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, we examine the property damage suffered by the accident in this case by Plaintiffs 1, 4, 2, 5, and 3.

진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑1호증(호적등본), 갑2호증(간이생명표), 을3,4호증(급여청구서)의 각 기재내용과 위 증인 소외 2의 증언에 당사자변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 망 소외 1은 1923.10.5.생으로서 본건 사고당시 42세 9월 남짓된 건강체를 가진 남자이던 사실, 같은 연령의 한국인 남자의 평균 여명은 24.19년인 사실, 동소외인은 본건 사고당시 피고회사의 작업부(포탄선별 책임자도 작업부이다)로 근무하고 있었으므로 본건 사고가 없었다면 특탄의 사유가 없는한 본건 사고 발생 이후부터 동 소외인의 평균여명 범위내이며 또 그때까지는 위 작업부 노동에 종사할 수 있다고 인정되는 55세 까지의 범위내인 위 원고들 주장의 147개월간은 피고회사 또는 다른 작업장에서 작업부 노동에 종사하여 동 임금 정도의 수입은 얻을 수 있었을 것이라는 사실, 동 소외인은 본건 사고당시 피고로부터 1일 평균임금(근로기준법상의) 428원 57전 월 평균임금 12,857원(위 원고들 계산대로 428원 57전×30로 산출하고 계산 결과에서 원 미만버림)을 받고 있었으므로, 본건 사고가 없어 동 소외인이 위 기간동안 위 노동에 종사하는 경우에도 우리의 경제추세로 보아 위 노동임금이 위 금원 정도는 될 것이라는 사실, 위 노동에 종사하는 사람은 생활비로서 매월 금 2,000원 정도를 소요하는 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 반증없으니, 위 소외인은 본건 사고로 인하여 본건 사고의 때로부터 위 147개월간 매월 금 9,869원(12,857원에 본건 사고당시 시행중인 소득세법에 의하여 원천징수되는 소득세 및 부가세 988원을 공제하고, 다시 위 생활비 2,000원을 공제한 것임)씩 얻을 수 있었을 순수입을 상실하여 동액의 손해를 입었다고 할 것인 바, 위 원고들은 위 손해를 본건 사고 발생시 기준의 일시금으로 청구하고 있으므로 위 금원에서 호프만식계산법에 따라 민법소정의 연 5푼(월 5/12푼)의 비율에 의한 중간 이자를 공제하여 본건 사고 발생시 기준의 일시청구 가능 금액을 계산하면 금 1,129,791원(9,869원×114.4788 위 원고들은 계산 결과 원미만버림)임이 계산상 명백한데, 위에서 본 소외 1의 과실을 참작하면 이를 금 500,000원으로 감액인정함이 타당하다고 할 것이고, 위 소외인의 피고에 대한 위 손해배상청구권은 위 소외인의 사망으로 인하여 위에서 본 동 소외인의 처인 원고 1, 위 갑1호증에 의하여 인정되는 동 소외인의 아들인 원고 2, 3, 딸인 원고 4, 5 몫은 각 금 10,204원씩, 원고 2, 3 몫은 각 금 20,408원씩이 되므로 위 각 원고는 피고에 대하여 동 각 액의 재산상 손해배상청구관이 있다고 할 것이다.

4. As to the following claim for consolation money:

In light of the empirical rule, it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiffs, the wife of the non-party 1, and the non-party 6, the plaintiff 6, and the plaintiff 7, who are the mother, suffered severe mental pain respectively due to the death of the non-party 1, due to the above non-party 1's accident. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above circumstance of the accident, the circumstance of the accident, the non-party's negligence in the accident in this case, the relationship between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the plaintiffs' property and living level recognized by the non-party 2's testimony in the above witness non-party 1, 500 won, 30 million won for the plaintiff 4, 2, 5, 300 won, 200 won for each of the above mental pain, and 20,000 won for the plaintiff 6 and 7 respectively.

5. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 with 60,204 won, 50,408 won, 40, 404 won, 50,204 won, 200 won, consolation money, and 20,200 won per annum of the Civil Code from July 31, 1966 to each full payment of the plaintiffs' claims, which were after the date of the occurrence of the accident, as the sum of the above property damage and consolation money, to the plaintiff 1, 60,204 won, 50% per annum of the Civil Code. Thus, each claim of the plaintiffs is justified within this limit, and each other's claim shall be dismissed. Since the part against the defendant in the original judgment against the defendant in excess of the above cited scope is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, the above part shall be revoked, and each plaintiff's claim for cancellation shall be dismissed, and each of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as per the application of Article 96, 989, and 392 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)