A. The meaning of occupational death under Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act

(b) In case the beneficiary becomes final and conclusive to be unable to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, whether or not the business owner who is the policyholder can claim accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act.

(a)in order to be recognized as a death on duty as stipulated in Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act, the death in question must be not only the death during the performance of duties, but also the death caused by his duties must have a proximate causal relation between his duties and the death;

B. Article 11(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is the basis for various accident compensation under the same Act, and its purpose is to make the insured escape from double accident compensation liability. Therefore, in a case where a beneficiary becomes unable to receive insurance benefits under the same Act, the beneficiary cannot further claim the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act against the business owner who is the insured for the same reason.

A. Article 82(2) of the Labor Standards Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Gyeong Passenger Transport Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 83Na414 delivered on July 6, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In order to be recognized as death under Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act, the death must be not only the death during the performance of duties, but also the death must be one which has a substantial relation between the duties and the death.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the deceased non-party 1, who was employed as the driver of the defendant company on March 19, 1982, could not be deemed to have died due to excess in light of the work status from the time when the deceased was employed as the defendant company to the day of death or the duty of the day of the death, and since the non-party 1, who was presumed to have been presumed to have been in an urgent situation, he could not be deemed to have been killed due to the death of the deceased's company in light of the above work status until the day of death or the duty of the day of the death. However, since the non-party 1 was presumed to have been in a medical condition before the death of the deceased, it is presumed that the cause of death was an acute part of the motor vehicle and there is no medical causal relationship between the operation of the motor vehicle.

Therefore, even if it is recognized that the deceased died during the performance of his duties, there is no proximate causal relation between the death and the performance of his duties, and in such a case, it cannot be seen as a death on duty as provided in Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and in a case where it is recognized as a death on duty, it is merely an independent opinion that the death on duty should be recognized as a death on duty, unless there are special circumstances.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In its reasoning, the court below should interpret the provision of Article 11 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, if the beneficiary becomes unable to receive insurance benefits under the above Act for the same reason, the beneficiary can not claim again the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act against the business owner who is the insured for the same reason. According to the evidence, the plaintiff, the bereaved family member of the deceased, requested the head of the Daegu Regional Office in the Ministry of Labor on April 1981, but received the decision of dismissal, and then received all the decision of dismissal to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Committee in the Ministry of Labor on June 20 of the same year under Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Business and Examination Act, and even if all the decision of dismissal was made to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Committee in the Ministry of Labor on August 13 of the same year, the above decision of dismissal becomes final and conclusive by failing to institute an administrative litigation within the lawful period. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim the accident compensation in this case against the defendant company, the insured,

On the other hand, Article 11 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "if a beneficiary receives insurance benefits under this Act, the insured shall be exempted from all the liability under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason." This purport is to allow the insured to escape from the double liability for compensation because the above Act is the basis for various accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, and as decided by the court below, if the beneficiary becomes unable to receive insurance benefits under the above Act, the beneficiary shall not be able to further claim for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act against the business owner who is the insured for the same reason (the original court cited the Supreme Court Decision 70Da2144 Decided November 24, 1970, but it seems that the court erred in the interpretation of Article 11 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above reasoning of the court below clearly shows that the plaintiff's claim is accompanied by another explanation for another reason to indicate that the plaintiff's claim is without merit. Thus, even if the above legal interpretation of the court below is erroneous, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the above deceased does not constitute death in the course of duty as seen above, and therefore, it

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)