A. Whether an employer is standing to sue on the disposition of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or whether the performance of the pre-trial procedure and the defect in the requirements of the pre-trial trial are cured until the closing of argument

A. In order to seek cancellation or change of an illegal administrative disposition, a person whose right to institute an administrative lawsuit against the agency is infringed shall be the direct counterpart to the disposition. However, with respect to the decision of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, a business owner who is the policyholder shall be affected by the amount of the insurance premium and has a legitimate interest in dispute as to whether it is legitimate.

B. Although the administrative litigation on the disposition of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is to be filed after the second step prior to the examination and reexamination, the fundamental purpose of the principle of administrative appeal pre-examination is to give administrative agencies an opportunity to reflect and utilize expertise of administrative agencies. Therefore, even if there is an error of law which fails to meet the pre-examination requirements at the time of the filing of the lawsuit, the defect in the defects is cured if they meet the pre-examination requirements by the time of

(a) Article 12 and (b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu127 delivered on October 28, 1986, 85Nu879 delivered on May 27, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu29 delivered on April 28, 1987

Korea Coal Corporation

The head of the office of the Ministry of Labor

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1287 delivered on January 22, 1987

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu400 Delivered on November 12, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

(1) Concerning standing to sue:

A person whose right has been infringed by an illegal administrative disposition may institute an administrative litigation against the agency in order to seek cancellation or change of the disposition. In this case, the person whose right has been infringed is general to become the other party to the disposition, and in the case of a third party, there is a legal interest in the cancellation or change of the administrative disposition. However, with respect to the decision of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the business owner, who is the insured, has a legitimate interest in law dealing with the legitimacy of the decision (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu127, Oct. 28, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879, May 27, 1986; etc.). In this case, the business owner does not necessarily have any change in the amount of the insurance premium and there is a legitimate interest only after the decision of the amount of the insurance premium is made.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the standing to sue, such as the theory of lawsuit, in accordance with the above opinion.

(2) As to whether the previous trial procedure is separated:

According to Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act, a person who has an objection to insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act may file a request for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, and a person who has an objection to such decision may file an administrative litigation. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that a request for review and reexamination under the preceding paragraph and an administrative litigation shall be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of a notice of insurance benefits, a decision on a request for review, a written ruling on a request for review, and a written ruling on a request for reexamination, respectively. Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 2 of the former Administrative Litigation Act, which was in force at the time of the case, provides that an administrative litigation on the disposition of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, shall be filed after the second stage review and reexamination procedure, but the administrative litigation may be filed after the second stage review and reexamination procedure, which is conducted after the lapse of 2 months from the date of the filing of the lawsuit, and thus, the purport of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not meet the requirements of the fact-finding.

In light of the records, the plaintiff received a request for examination under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act from the defendant on January 9, 1984 that "the Minister of Labor, who received the request for dismissal of the cause of action" from the defendant on May 2 of the same year, but the above ruling was null and void by a person without authority, and the administrative litigation of this case was filed without the adjudication even after the plaintiff filed one-stage lawsuit against the non-party 1 in the second step lawsuit against the non-party 1 while the non-party 1 was employed in a dusty work site. The plaintiff received a notification from the above industrial accident examiner on January 6, 1984, and made a request for examination under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act to the industrial accident examiner under the jurisdiction of the court below on March 7 of the same year, and the plaintiff received the request for dismissal under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act, and the decision was just in the judgment below's rejection of the request for reexamination after the remand of this case from the court below on June 30, 1986.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the application of the non-party 1 on April 26, 1983 and decided that the non-party 1 returned from pneumoconiosis and heavy pulmonary tuberculosis as a result of the first diagnosis at the Korea Workers' Welfare Corporation Hospital was an occupational disease caused by 375 meters underground of the center of the YH and 300 meters underground from the work site of the plaintiff Corporation, and that the non-party 1 did not comply with the rules of evidence on the ground that the non-party 1 was merely an employee of the above YG from around October 1958 to July 196, 196, and that the non-party 1 was not an employee of the above YGM and the non-party 1 was not an employee of the above YGMM from around September 1, 1965 to around September 31, 196, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence against the non-party 1's employment of the above YGMMMMMMM as an employee.

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 Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)