In a case where Party A, who worn an artificial apartment security guard and worked as an apartment security guard, applied for medical care benefits due to a disaster, such as the destruction of artificial satisfaction, etc., but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that the “damage” does not constitute the medical care benefits standard, the case holding that the case holding that the injury is included in the worker’s injury subject to medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

In a case where Party A, who worn an apartment security guard and worked as an apartment security guard, filed an application for medical care benefits by suffering from a disaster, such as the destruction of artificial satisfaction, but the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care on the ground that the “salvance damage” does not meet the medical care benefits standard, the case holding that, in light of the legislative intent and purpose of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and the Remedy against their Rights, the structure, form and content of the provisions on medical care benefits and auxiliary equipment for persons with disabilities, and the concept of discriminatory acts against the disabled in the interpretation of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, artificial satisfaction is not merely a mere assistive device, but also a device that physically, physically, and substantially replaces a bridge installed due to an occupational reason, if the worker’s satisfaction is damaged due to an occupational reason, it is included in the employee’s injury subject to medical care benefits

Article 5 subparag. 1, Article 40(1) and (5) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 1 and Article 4(1)2 of the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Remedy against Infringement of Rights, etc.

Plaintiff (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu6836 decided August 17, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the protection of workers by compensating workers for occupational accidents promptly and fairly through the implementation of the industrial accident compensation insurance business, by establishing and operating insurance facilities necessary to facilitate the rehabilitation of workers suffering from occupational accidents and their return to society (Article 1); and “occupational accidents” refers to workers’ injury, disease, disability or death due to occupational causes (Article 5 subparag. 1); and medical care benefits shall be paid to workers who suffer from occupational injury or suffer from disease (Article 40(1)); and the criteria for calculating medical care benefits, such as the scope thereof, are delegated to the Ministry of Employment and Labor (Article 40(4) and (5)).

Meanwhile, “Provisions on the designation, etc. of auxiliary equipment for persons with disabilities” as delegated by the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities defines “the purpose” as a device that is externally applied to replace the intent when the whole or part of the physical division of the body is deteriorated or defective (attached Table 1* 06), and “a broad bridge will” as to “a device that substitutes part of a bridge between bune and knee pipe (attached Table 1* 06) in cases where her bune and knee are damaged after cutting or at the time of birth.

In addition, the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities”) provides that the purpose of this Act is to realize dignity and value as a human being through full social participation and the realization of equality rights by preventing discrimination against persons with disabilities in all living areas and effectively remedying the rights and interests of persons with discrimination on the basis of disability (Article 1). Although it is not disadvantageous to persons with disabilities by means of restriction, exclusion, separation, denial, etc. in the form of a disability, the Act does not apply standards that do not consider disability without justifiable grounds to cause unfavorable results to persons with disabilities (Article 4(1)2).

2. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, found the Defendant’s refusal to grant medical care in this case lawful on the grounds that: (a) the prior meaning of injury refers to the physical injury of a body; (b) the injury of a leg which does not involve injury cannot be included in the scope of injury subject to medical care benefits; (c) even if the “standards for calculating industrial accident compensation insurance” under Articles 40(4)2 and 40(5) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act includes assistive devices, etc., it does not constitute a basis for recognizing medical care benefits by deeming the damage of the above assistive devices, etc. as occupational injury; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the degree of assistive devices that are relatively easy and does not completely replace the physical function as a part of the body as above.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff started to work as an apartment security guard in 2009 while cutting down the bridge on the right knee in a traffic accident in 1995, and wearing an artificial knee and leading a normal social life. ② The Plaintiff was in excess of snow removal work, which is an apartment security guard, on December 28, 2010, and was damaged, and there was no particular obstacle to the Plaintiff’s performance of duties as an apartment security guard, ③ the current medical technology level has no choice but to break away in lieu of installation of artificial knee in person’s body, and thus, the disabled, who installed the knee like the Plaintiff, can wear most of the daily life except for the water surface time, ④ the disabled’s wearing of artificial knee is in de facto replacing an artificial knee with a physical and physical leg, ⑤ the Plaintiff is able to perform his/her duties within the scope of his/her body condition without being damaged by the Defendant’s body.

B. In addition to these facts, according to the legislative purport and purpose of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, the structure, form, and content of the provision on medical care benefits and auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities, and the concept of discriminatory acts against persons with disabilities, etc., the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act’s interpretation does not necessarily require to limit the body of the injured in the course of occupational accident. ② In the event that bodily damage is not regarded as an occupational accident, it would cause a considerable gap in compensation and rehabilitation for workers with disabilities, ③ in light of the replacement of the body as seen earlier, it is not reasonable to apply medical care benefits based on whether to attach the body, ④ in the event of occupational accident, it is unlikely for business operators to make the employment of persons with disabilities more passive, and ⑤ in order to achieve the purpose of establishing the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act’s establishment, the defendant should be considered not merely as an organization with disabilities but also as a functional and physical assistance for workers with disabilities, and also as a replacement of the body or bridge for workers with physical injury.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of equality under the Constitution and the prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities, the scope of occupational accidents and medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of

4. 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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)