beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, as the employer of B, is obligated to pay the medical care expenses incurred from the instant accident to B, who is his employee, under Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant, as the insurer of the health insurance, was exempted from the obligation to compensate for the pertinent medical care expenses due to the health insurance paid by B, thereby gaining profits equivalent to KRW 3,194,770 of the medical care expenses paid by the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby, sustained damages equivalent to the same amount.
3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund to the Plaintiff the above KRW 3,194,770 and delay damages therefor. Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the employer shall provide necessary medical treatment at his/her expense or bear necessary medical care expenses in cases where a worker has provided medical care due to an occupational injury or disease. If a worker who suffered from an occupational accident received benefits from a third party, other than the employer, equivalent to medical care compensation as provided for in Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act, he/she shall not be entitled to exercise the right to claim medical care due to an occupational accident. Thus, the employer is obligated to return benefits that the worker would be exempted from the duty to claim medical care for the third party who provided the benefit corresponding to the medical care compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1260, Apr. 28, 2005). According to the above recognition facts, the Defendant, the employer of B, was liable for the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.