[1] The meaning of Article 84(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act "in a case where an insurance benefit was received by false or other unjust means"

[2] Whether a defect in a beneficial administrative disposition should consider the trust interest of the party in a case where the defect occurred due to the party's concealment or other fraudulent act (negative)

[1] Article 84 (1) 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4 (2) of the Administrative Procedures Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du9696 Decided February 14, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10287 Decided May 28, 2009 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669 Decided May 25, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1162), Supreme Court Decision 2008Du8628 Decided November 13, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1682)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Nu1949 decided December 16, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 84(1) main sentence of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "if a person who received insurance benefits falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Corporation shall collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the relevant benefits (in cases falling under subparagraph 1, the amount equivalent to twice the relevant benefits)" and subparagraph 1 provides that "in cases where the person who received the insurance benefits has received the insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means, the amount equivalent to double the amount of the benefits." In light of the language and text of the above provision and the purport of the provision that collects punitive amount equivalent to twice the amount of the benefits in cases of violation of subparagraph 1, the above provision refers to cases where the person who received the insurance benefits received the insurance benefits who is unable to receive the insurance benefits actively while recognizing that the person was subjectively false or other unlawful means (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10287, May 28,

In addition, where there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency which has conducted an administrative act may revoke it by itself even without a separate legal basis. However, when the disposition agency revokes a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it only where it is strong enough to justify the disadvantage that the public interest needs to sustain due to the necessity of the public interest and the infringement of the right to obtain benefits and the protection of trust, and the stability of legal life, etc. caused by the cancellation. However, if the defect of the beneficial administrative disposition is attributable to the party's act of application by deceit or other fraudulent means, the party is likely to know that he illegally acquired the benefit from the disposition, and even if the administrative agency did not consider it, it shall not be deemed an abuse of discretionary power, and in this case, the fact of the party is not considered to have been passive through a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 208Du8628, Nov. 13, 2008, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in its adopted evidence. Then, the court below acknowledged the following facts and found the following facts: (1) since the plaintiff was deemed to have been capable of working at least on November 1, 2005, the disposition for collecting unjust enrichment for nursing expenses and the disposition for paying nursing expenses based on the premise that the plaintiff does not need nursing care according to the disease of this case is legitimate; (2) considering the plaintiff's injury status, treatment progress, the plaintiff's symptoms related to the disease of this case's injury before and after December 17, 2007 when the defendant decided the plaintiff's invalidity grade, the plaintiff's life beds, and the result of appraisal against the plaintiff, the plaintiff's labor force cannot be deemed completely lost at the time of December 17, 2007, and therefore, the revocation of the invalidity grade of this case is legitimate; and (3) in the process of determining the injury-disease compensation annuity, the plaintiff actively received the insurance benefits in this case's subjective or fraudulent manner.

In light of the above legal principles, the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, restrictions on cancellation of beneficial administrative disposition, limits on the collection of unjust enrichment under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the burden

Meanwhile, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the Defendant did not give prior notice of, hear opinions about, and present the grounds for the disposition under the Administrative Procedures Act while rendering each of the dispositions of this case is a new argument that is only the first time in the final appeal and cannot be a legitimate ground

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 So-young (Presiding Justice)