logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.02 2016나3808
부당이득금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

In fact, the plaintiff is a non-profit corporation that runs the national health insurance business in accordance with the National Health Insurance Act, and B is a national health insurance policyholder.

B was employed by the Defendant and C on March 24, 2008 and engaged in cutting the dead pine trees in the habitat of pine trees in Yong-Namnam-gun D on March 24, 2008 (hereinafter “instant accident”) and suffered injuries, such as the alley-down frame.

B, due to the instant accident from March 24, 2008 to August 19, 2008, the Plaintiff received treatment at the Yeongdeungpo General Hospital, etc., and the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,123,470, excluding KRW 3,753,230, out of the aggregate of the treatment costs of KRW 14,876,70.

From the Defendant or C (C’s inheritor E) to November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 30,000, out of the aforementioned KRW 11,123,470, and the amount yet to be recovered is KRW 11,093,470.

【In a case where an employee suffers from an occupational injury or disease, the employer shall provide necessary medical treatment at his/her expense or bear necessary medical care expenses, as provided in Article 78(1) of the Labor Standards Act, in a case where the employee suffers from an occupational injury or disease. Thus, the employee cannot exercise his/her right to claim medical care compensation due to an occupational accident unless he/she receives any benefit equivalent to medical care compensation as provided in Article 78(1) of the Labor Standards Act from a third party other than the employer.

As such, an employer is obligated to return benefits acquired by removing a third party who has provided a benefit equivalent to the compensation for medical care from his/her obligation to compensate for medical care to a worker.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da12660 delivered on April 28, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, the above facts of recognition are comprehensively taken into account. B.

arrow