The meaning of "Failure to pay insurance premiums" which are grounds for collection of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

Article 26-2 (1) 2 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4641 of Dec. 27, 1993) and Article 64-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14412 of Nov. 9, 1994) mean that a policyholder neglected to pay the estimated premium reported by the deadline for payment under Article 23 (1), (2), and (4) of the same Act by the deadline for report under Article 23 (1) and (2) of the same Act, as well as neglect to pay the estimated premium properly by failing to report or falsely reporting the estimated premium by the deadline for report under Article 23 (1) and (2) of the same Act.

Articles 23 and 26-2(1) (see Articles 65 and 72(1)) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4641 of Dec. 27, 1993); Article 64-2(2) (see Article 78(2)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14412 of Nov. 9, 1994)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Dong-dong Atomic Atomic Energy Co., Ltd.

The representative of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation shall complete the Park Hong-spe Kim

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu8913 delivered on October 25, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to Articles 23 subparag. 1, 2, and 23 subparag. 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4641 of Dec. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 51, 51-2, 53, and 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14412 of Nov. 9, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), continuously operated policyholders shall report the estimated premium within 60 days from the beginning date of each insurance year to the whole payment or divide it into four quarters each year. In addition, if the total estimated premium after the payment of the estimated premium increases above 20%, the increase in the estimated premium by not later than the last day of the month following the month in which the cause for such increase occurred, and if the insured fails to report the estimated premium by not later than the last day of 20% of the prescribed amount of the insurance premium to the total amount of the insurance premium collected by not later than 1.

The court below's decision that the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of bereaved family's benefits by 30% of the collection rate of the unpaid portion (41,780 won + 4,279,130 won) by the unpaid portion (41,780 won + 4,279,130 won) among the estimated premiums already reported by the plaintiff was reduced differently from the facts, and the legitimate estimated premium portion (4,279,130 won) which was not reported by the plaintiff was paid due to a disaster occurred during the period of neglecting to pay the estimated premiums (4,279,130 won) which was not reported by the plaintiff, is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there

As alleged in the theory of the lawsuit, it is insufficient to limit the time limit for the report and payment as prescribed in Article 23 (1), (2) and (4) of the Act to the extent that the investigation and collection of the estimated premium under Article 23 (3) of the Act, or the demand for the payment of the estimated premium under Article 27 of the Act, has not been made within the time limit specified in the collection or demand. The decision of the party member cited in the theory of the lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16215 delivered on April 26, 1994) is related to the requirements for the imposition of arrears under Article 26 of the Act, and it is not appropriate to apply to this case. The arguments are without merit.

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.

February 14, 1997

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)