[1] In a case where an administrative agency decides to collect unjust enrichment from a beneficiary of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and reduces the amount of money collectible on the ground of its defect, whether there is a benefit in legal action seeking revocation of the reduction disposition against the payer (negative), and in a case where the administrative agency seeks to dispute over the remaining portion without being revoked on the ground of a reduction disposition, which serves as the basis for determining whether the subject of appeal

[2] The purport of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and whether the period for filing a suit is calculated again from the date when the original written adjudication on an administrative appeal filed pursuant to such guidance is served (negative)

[1] Where an administrative agency reduces the amount of money to be collected on the grounds of defects in a decision on collection after making a decision on unjust enrichment against a beneficiary of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the amount of money to be collected is legally effective only in relation to the portion of money to be collected, and its substance is not the original decision on collection and separate independent collection, but it is a disposition that leads to a change in the original decision on collection and a result favorable to the person liable to collect the money to be collected. Accordingly, there is no interest in legal action seeking revocation. Accordingly, in a case where an administrative agency intends to dispute over the remaining portion of money not yet revoked as a result of a decision on reduction, the amount of money to be collected may not be subject to an appeal litigation, and the remaining part of the money to be collected may not be subject to the original decision on reduction, and as a result

[2] Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “In a case where a revocation suit is instituted within 90 days from the date when the administrative agency becomes aware of the disposition, but the administrative agency falsely notifies that a request for administrative appeal is possible, the period from the date when the original copy of the written adjudication is served.” The purport of the above provision is to relieve a person who is unable to file a revocation suit within the original litigation due to the reliance on wrong guidance, in a case where the administrative agency falsely notifies the other party to the disposition that he/she could have lawfully filed an administrative appeal despite the lack of legal permission for an administrative appeal due to the lack of indivantability. This is because, even if the period for filing an administrative appeal has already expired, the other party is not deprived of the opportunity to file an administrative appeal within the legitimate period for filing an administrative appeal, and thus, the period for filing an administrative appeal in such a case cannot be calculated again from the date when the original copy of the written adjudication filed in accordance with the wrong guidance was served. This is because the other party’s right to file an administrative appeal is no longer new one.

[1] Article 84 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du3211 delivered on May 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1812)

Plaintiff (Attorney O Jae-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu9944 decided October 7, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where an administrative agency reduces the amount of money to be collected on the grounds of defects in a decision on collection of unjust enrichment against a beneficiary of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the disposition on reduction is legally effective only with respect to the amount of money to be collected, and its substance is not the original decision on collection and separate independent collection, but it is a disposition that leads to a change in the original decision on collection and a result favorable to the person liable to collect the money to be collected. Accordingly, there is no interest in legal action to seek cancellation against the person liable to collect the money to be collected. Accordingly, in a case where an administrative agency seeks to dispute over the remaining portion of money not yet revoked as a result of a decision on reduction, it cannot be subject to appeal litigation, and the remaining portion of the money to be collected can only be subject to appeal litigation, and as a result, whether the period of filing a lawsuit is complied with shall be determined on the basis of the initial disposition not as a reduction (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du3211, May

Meanwhile, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, “In a case where a revocation suit is instituted within 90 days from the date on which the administrative agency becomes aware of the disposition, but the administrative agency has mistakenly notified that a request for administrative appeal is possible, the period from the date on which the original copy of the written adjudication is served.” The purport of the above provision is to relieve a person who is unable to file an administrative appeal within the original litigation due to the reliance on the erroneous guidance, in a case where the administrative agency falsely notifies the other party to the disposition that was legally entitled to file an administrative appeal even though the request for administrative appeal was not allowed due to the lack of indivantability. Thus, if it is impossible for the other party to file an administrative appeal due to the lack of capacity to file an administrative appeal after the lapse of the period for filing an administrative appeal, even if the other party to the disposition is found to have lost the opportunity to file an administrative appeal within the legitimate period for filing an administrative appeal, such erroneous guidance cannot be deemed to have been newly calculated from the date on which the original copy of the written adjudication requested in accordance with the guidance was served.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff was paid KRW 14,564,420, which is the maximum amount of disability compensation benefits from an insurance company for the accident of this case, KRW 1080,000,000, and KRW 5,172,710, and the non-party was paid KRW 15,22,710,00,000 from the defendant's medical care benefits to the non-party who is the owner of the diversary vehicle according to the provision of 200,000,000,000,000 won for 20,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,00.

If the facts are as above, the instant disposition was made in order to discover and correct the error in the part determined as double compensation at the time of the instant decision on collection, and thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff has the substance of the original decision on collection as a quantitative cancellation, and as such, it does not cause any disadvantage to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot appeal the instant disposition, which is a reduction disposition. However, as long as the Plaintiff did not dispute the original decision on collection within the objection period, and there is no possibility of dispute, the Plaintiff may not appeal against the instant disposition, which is a reduction disposition. However, it is natural in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff knew that the Defendant, who is the administrative agency, was able to file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation while imposing a reduction, was able to bring an administrative appeal or administrative litigation, as long as the Plaintiff did not dispute the original decision on collection, which

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the lawsuit of this case is deemed unlawful because it had already lapsed the period of filing the lawsuit, is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the period of filing

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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)