[1] Whether, under Article 41 (3) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act, the person whose disability grade has not been determined as of the date of the closure of a disaster is included in the re-employed worker who received the first medical care and the corresponding physical disability grade after receiving the determination of the physical disability grade, and received the corresponding accident compensation benefits after the date of closure of the disaster, due to a recurrence of the relevant injury or a merger due to the pertinent injury (affirmative) and the amount of disaster compensation benefits to be paid in such case (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an employee who suffered occupational accidents due to pneumoconiosis in a closed mine was entitled to receive a pneumoconiosis compensation annuity, which is not disability benefits, since the date of enforcement of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010) as of November 21, 2010, pursuant to Article 41(3)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (affirmative)

[1] Article 39-3 (1) of the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of March 6, 1993); Article 41 (3) 5 (see current Article 41 (4) 5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13870 of March 6, 1993) / [2] Article 39-3 (1) of the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of March 6, 1993); Article 41 (3) 5 (see current Article 41 (4) 5) of the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13870 of March 6, 1993); Article 36 (1), 91-3, and 91-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du12598 Decided January 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 381) Supreme Court Decision 98Du5149 Decided June 22, 1999 (Gong2017Du69830 Decided July 25, 2019 (Gong2019Ha, 1678)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Mine Reclamation Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2019Nu53985 decided January 17, 2020

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

1) From August 8, 198 to October 31, 1992, the Plaintiff worked as an coal mine source at ○○ Mining Center (hereinafter “instant mining center”). The instant mining center was closed on May 14, 1993.

2) On January 8, 1990, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “type 2/1 of pneumoconiosis disease type,” and was paid KRW 4,05,400 for lump-sum disability compensation benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on April 26, 1990.

3) On August 26, 2009, after the mine closure of the instant mining center, the Plaintiff was judged as “4B type of pneumoconiosis disease, F1/2,” and accordingly, was paid for lump-sum disability compensation benefits of KRW 19,406,060 on September 11, 2009.

4) Where the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was amended by Act No. 10305 on May 20, 2010 (hereinafter “Revised Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act did not pay temporary layoff benefits, disability benefits, survivors’ benefits, injury-disease compensation annuities, and the pneumoconiosis compensation annuities and pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuities (Articles 36(1), 91-3, and 91-4).

5) On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was determined as “4B type of pneumoconiosis,” and “F1 of cardiopulmonary function F1,” and the disability grade was raised to Grade V, and was paid pneumoconiosis compensation annuities in accordance with the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

6) On April 8, 2019, the Defendant paid the same amount of disaster compensation benefits paid to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s lump-sum disability compensation benefits received.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether an employee who receives “ pneumoconiosis compensation annuity” under the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act is eligible for the payment of disaster compensation benefits equivalent to lump-sum disability compensation benefits under Article 41(3)5 (hereinafter “instant provision”) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13870, Mar. 6, 1993”).

2. Relevant provisions and legal principles

A. Article 39-3 (1) of the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of Mar. 6, 1993) provides that when a coal mining business operator of a mine subject to the payment of mine closure countermeasure expenses completes the registration of extinction of the relevant mining right, mining concession right, or continuing operation right, the coal industry rationalization business entity shall pay the following amount to the retired workers, coal mining business operators, etc. of the mine in question, and subparagraph 4 of the same Article provides that “other mine closure countermeasure expenses as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” shall be “other mine closure countermeasure expenses as prescribed by the Presidential Decree”. According to the delegation, the instant provision provides that “if the mine is closed through the deliberation of the Committee under Article 42-2 (1) or through the deliberation of the Committee under Article 39-3 (2) of the Act, the person who suffered an occupational accident during the period from one year to the closing date of the mine in question and whose disability grade is not determined as of the date of closure. In this case, the amount of the disaster compensation benefits paid to the retired workers in question was clearly excluded from the same amount.

B. As a part of the mine closure countermeasure expenses, the disaster compensation benefits paid to workers suffering from occupational accidents in the closed mine is characterized by the consolation benefits paid in addition to ordinary accident compensation in a social security level to workers suffering from special difficulties, such as occupational accidents, in light of the demand and supply of domestic coal, who are not considered desirable for the balanced development of the national economy, in closing coal mines without economic feasibility (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9592, Mar. 29, 2002).

Pneumoconiosis is a representative occupational accident that may occur to workers of the coal mining center. Even if it is impossible to completely recover due to modern medical science and left the workplace where dust has occurred, it is difficult to predict the progress. Moreover, if pneumoconiosis is caused, it is mainly exposed to several mergers, and medical care benefits are paid to treat pneumoconiosis. Considering the characteristics of pneumoconiosis symptoms, the issue of whether the pneumoconiosis symptoms that occurred before the date of closure are immediately given the immediately higher disability grade or is gradually aggravated and whether the disability grade is given after the date of closure is difficult to predict (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du69830, Jul. 25, 2019). Accordingly, “a person whose disability grade has not been determined as of the date of closure despite the period of occurrence of a disaster,” the first medical care is terminated, and the injury grade has been determined after the determination of the disability grade corresponding thereto, and the first re-treatment or re-treatment after the determination of a new disability grade is included in the injury or injury compensation benefits corresponding thereto.

3. Whether an employee receiving pneumoconiosis compensation annuities is entitled to receive the pneumoconiosis compensation annuities;

In full view of the contents of relevant regulations and the legislative purpose of the accident compensation benefits paid as part of the mine closure countermeasure expenses based on the characteristics of pneumoconiosis, even if a worker who suffered from occupational accidents due to pneumoconiosis in an abandoned mine was entitled to receive a pneumoconiosis compensation annuity, which is not disability benefits (e.g., disability compensation annuity or lump-sum disability compensation benefits), due to the “determination of disability grade after November 21, 2010, the enforcement date of the amended Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”, it shall be deemed as subject to the payment of disaster compensation benefits under the provisions of this case

A. The instant provision provides that “disaster consolation money that is paid to .............., the latter part of the latter part provides that “in this case, the amount of disaster consolation money shall be the same as that of .........” Thus, the latter part of the same Article provides that “the person who satisfies the requirements for payment of disaster consolation money” shall be deemed to be “the standards for calculating the amount of

At the time of the enactment of the latter part of the provision of this case, both workers and their bereaved family members who were judged as disability grades due to occupational accidents in a closed mine due to the failure to introduce the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity and the pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuity system, were or could have received both lump-sum disability compensation benefits and lump-sum survivors’ benefits. Therefore, in order to facilitate the calculation of the amount of accident compensation benefits, the latter part of the provision of this case to the effect that the payment of accident compensation benefits should be made only when the lump-sum disability compensation benefits or lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits were received.

B. Disability benefits and survivors’ benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) and pneumoconiosis compensation annuities and pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuities under the amended Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are those provided to “workers determined by a disability grade due to pneumoconiosis” and “bereaved who died due to pneumoconiosis,” and only the name, amount, and method of payment of insurance benefits was changed. Since the criteria for determining the degree of pneumoconiosis and cardiopulmonary function and the degree of disability grade based on symptoms are the same, if the same water supply disability grade is the same, there is no difference between “harm receiving pneumoconiosis compensation annuities” under the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act and “harm receiving disability compensation annuities or lump-sum payment” under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see Articles 57(2), 91-8(1) and (2), 91-8(1) and (3) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and Article 58(1) [Attachment 2(1)]

C. Whether to receive disability benefits, which became final and conclusive before the enforcement date of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act, or whether to receive a pneumoconiosis compensation annuity whose disability grade has been determined after the enforcement date of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act, is merely a sudden situation depending on the speed of pneumoconiosis symptoms difficult to predict. Furthermore, whether a worker’s death before the enforcement date of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act will receive “bereaved benefits” or whether the worker’s survivors will receive “mining survivors’ benefits” after the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act enters into force is merely a sudden situation depending on the speed of pneumoconiosis symptoms.

D. The purpose of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act is to enhance the equity of compensation among pneumoconiosis workers and contribute to the stabilization of the livelihood of pneumoconiosis workers. It is difficult to find any materials to deem that there was legislative intent to not pay disaster compensation benefits under the Coal Industry Act to the “worker receiving the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity” and “bereaved family members receiving the pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuity. Rather, Article 41(4)5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 25831, Dec. 9, 2014 explicitly states that “where an occupational accident is recognized due to pneumoconiosis pursuant to Article 91-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act” should be excluded from the subject of the payment of disaster compensation benefits, the purport of the amended Act explicitly states that the Act otherwise regulates the workers receiving the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity and the bereaved family members receiving the pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuity under the Mining Industry Act, on the premise that the payment of disaster compensation benefits under the Mining Industry Act can be made.

E. If the payment of disaster consolation benefits differs depending on whether the worker’s benefits are disability benefits or pneumoconiosis compensation annuities, it would result in unreasonable results that the payment of disaster consolation benefits varies depending on the actual amount of benefits paid.

Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that where a person receiving a disability compensation annuity due to pneumoconiosis changes after the enforcement of this Act, if the amount of the disability compensation annuity calculated pursuant to the previous provisions is more than the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity calculated pursuant to the amended provisions, a disability compensation annuity shall be continuously paid pursuant to the previous provisions. However, if it is deemed that only the person receiving a disability compensation annuity pursuant to the previous provisions is entitled to the accident compensation annuity, the disability compensation annuity shall be paid equally due to the same pneumoconiosis, and if the disability grade is increased after November 21, 2010, when the amount of the disability compensation annuity is higher than the amount of the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity, the worker receiving the disability compensation annuity may be entitled to the accident compensation annuity, and if the amount of the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity is higher than the amount of the disability compensation annuity, any unreasonable result arises that prevents the worker receiving the pneumoconiosis compensation annuity from receiving

F. Article 57(2) [Attachment 2] of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and the criteria for the calculation of lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits under the same Act for a person who receives pneumoconiosis compensation annuities and pneumoconiosis survivors’ annuities, are applied mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the amount of accident compensation benefits by analogy of the criteria for the calculation of lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits under the same Act (Article 57(2) [Attachment 2] and the criteria for lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits (Article 62(2) [Attachment 3]. In practice, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides for the method of calculating the amount calculated by applying the criteria for the calculation of lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits or lump-sum survivors’ compensation benefits, as in cases of special disability benefits or special survivors’ benefits, for a person who receives pneumoconiosis compensation annuities or pneumoconiosis survivors’ benefits (Article 78 and

Even if there are some differences in the amount of benefits between “the case of receiving pneumoconiosis compensation annuities and pneumoconiosis survivors’ benefits” under the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act and “the case of receiving disability benefits and survivors’ benefits” under the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the purport and nature of the system differs. As such, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act differ in the purport and nature of the system. Therefore, regardless of the increase or decrease of the amount of insurance benefits therefrom, it cannot be deemed that the payment of disaster compensation benefits under the Coal Industry Act is contrary to equity by applying the same standard as before.

4. Determination as to the instant case

A. Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following determination is possible.

1) The Plaintiff was finally determined at disability grade 5 on June 16, 2015, which was after the closure of mine due to occupational accidents in the instant mining center, and thus constitutes the subject of payment of disaster compensation benefits under the main sentence of the instant provision.

2) Since the amount of disaster compensation benefits to be paid by the Plaintiff is the same amount as the lump-sum compensation for disability pursuant to the latter part of the instant provision, the criteria for calculating lump-sum disability compensation under Article 57(2) [Attachment Table 2] of the amended Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (=Article 57(2) [Attachment Table 2] may be calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the criteria for calculating lump-sum disability compensation benefits under Article 57(2) [Attachment 2] (i.e

B. Nevertheless, in order to be eligible for the payment of disaster compensation benefits under the provision of this case, the lower court determined that not only the requirements of the former part of the Article of this case should be satisfied, but also the status to be able to receive the lump-sum compensation benefits or lump-sum lump-sum lump-sum compensation benefits as prescribed in the latter part of the latter part of this case, but also the Plaintiff, who only received a pneumoconiosis compensation annuity under the amended Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, did not receive disability benefits, does not constitute the subject of the payment of disaster compensation benefits under the provision of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)