[1] The meaning of “the full recovery of occupational injury or disease” under Article 80(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[2] Whether the treatment for preventing the aggravation of a fixed symptoms rather than the treatment for supporting the injury or disease of an employee under medical care is subject to medical care compensation under Article 78(1) of the Labor Standards Act (negative)

[1] In light of the fact that “the full recovery of occupational injury or disease” under Article 80(1) of the Labor Standards Act is a premise for disability compensation, it is reasonable to conclude that not only the full recovery from the state of injury or disease before the injury or disease, but also the treatment cannot be expected any longer, and that the symptoms thereof are fixed.

[2] In a case where an employee receiving medical care under the Labor Standards Act turns to a fixed state of symptoms caused by an occupational injury or disease, the employer’s accident compensation liability under the Labor Standards Act differs in the scope of the requirements and responsibility for tort liability due to strict liability for guaranteeing the livelihood of the employee. In light of the fact that the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are equal or similar to the employer’s accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the basis for calculating the amount of benefits, and the nature of the employer’s accident compensation liability, and that the medical care for preventing aggravation of the fixed symptoms under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not the subject of medical care benefits, in full view of the fact that the medical care is not the subject of medical care benefits, as the case where the medical care is required to prevent aggravation of the fixed symptoms under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, not the medical care for protecting the injury or disease of the employee receiving medical care, but the medical care

[1] Article 80(1) of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Articles 78(1) and 80(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 5 subparag. 4, 40, and 57 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du7332 Decided September 10, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1668)

National Health Insurance Corporation

Defendant (Attorney Full Il-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Na300404 Decided July 24, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the Labor Standards Act, if a worker suffers from an occupational injury or disease, the employer shall provide necessary medical treatment at his/her expense or bear necessary medical treatment expenses (Article 78(1)), and if a worker suffers from a physical disability after completely recovering from an occupational injury or disease, the employer shall provide compensation for disability calculated by multiplying the average wage by the prescribed number of days according to the degree of disability (Article 80(1)). In this context, the term “additional treatment for an occupational injury or disease” is a premise for compensation for disability, as well as where the effect of treatment is no longer expected, and the symptoms thereof are fixed.

In light of the fact that an employee receiving medical care under the Labor Standards Act is in a fixed state of symptoms caused by an occupational injury or disease, the employer’s accident compensation liability under the Labor Standards Act differs in the requirements and scope of liability for tort liability due to strict liability for the employee’s livelihood security. Insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are the same or similar criteria for the employer’s accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act and for the calculation of the amount of benefits, and have the nature of liability insurance for the employer’s accident compensation. In light of the fact that only medical care is needed to prevent aggravation of symptoms fixed under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it is not subject to medical care benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du7332, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.) by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the employer’s accident compensation liability under the Labor Standards Act differs in the scope of the requirements and scope of liability; and (b) the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are not subject to medical care benefits for preventing the aggravation of a fixed symptoms.

In the same purport, the court below is just to dismiss the claim of this case seeking a return of unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to the expenses, on the ground that the plaintiff should have been borne by the defendant who is the employer under the employer's liability for medical care compensation under Article 78 (1) of the Labor Standards Act after the completion of medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act concerning the worker's injury or disease caused by occupational accident, and that the expenses should have been borne by the worker, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the scope of medical care compensation

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.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)