Sc Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Yellow-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

September 5, 2006

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Gudan5263 decided Dec. 7, 2005

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of paying insurance benefits in lieu of the insurance benefits to the plaintiff on February 23, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 4, and Eul evidence of 1 to 7, and there is no counter-proof.

A. At around 16:00 on April 17, 200, Nonparty 1, an employee of the Plaintiff, driven the freight vehicle owned by the Plaintiff to deliver the household to the Osan University, which is the Plaintiff’s customer, and driving the four-lane 11.5 km away from the upper parallel line to the upper parallel line in the outer cycle of the Guri-U.S., Seoul, and caused a traffic accident caused by Nonparty 3’s death, who was on the wind to conceal the truck owned by Nonparty 2, who was stopped on the side of the mari, while driving the four-lane 11.5 km away from the upper parallel line from the upper parallel.

B. On May 9, 2003, Nonparty 4, as the wife of Nonparty 3, who is the bereaved family, received the liability insurance amount of KRW 80,000,000, including funeral expenses KRW 2,000,000, from Nonparty Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Samsung Fire”), a liability insurance company regarding the foregoing cargo vehicle owned by the Plaintiff.

C. On May 23, 2003, Nonparty 4 filed a claim for compensation for survivors (50% in lump sum, 50% in lump sum, and 50% in pension) and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the death of Nonparty 3 constituted occupational accidents. On June 2, 2003, the Defendant decided to pay the bereaved family compensation amounting to KRW 39,090,070 (50% in lump sum for bereaved family) and the amount of the survivors’ compensation that begins from May 1, 2003, until the payment was suspended until the fulfillment of KRW 78,00,000 in normal conditions after the payment was completed, and KRW 7,216,620 in funeral expenses was paid within the 10th day of each month, and KRW 5,216,620 deducted the remainder of KRW 2,00 received from Samsung Fire, and paid KRW 5,216,620 in funeral expenses to Nonparty 3.

D. On July 24, 2003, Nonparty 4 agreed to receive KRW 17,00,000,000 (i.e., death KRW 45,000,000 + 123,000,000 + funeral expenses KRW 2,00,000 + KRW 123,000,000 + KRW 17,000,000,000) as the insurance money of traffic accident against Nonparty 3, the insurer who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the above truck owned by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “newdong Fire”). Around that time, Nonparty 4 received the above KRW 17,00,00 from the Newdong Fire, and around that time, entered into an agreement with Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff and the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Corporation, the owner of the instant sea vehicle, and transferred all rights to compensate for damages and insurance claims owned by the Plaintiff and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Corporation (hereinafter July 28, 2003).

E. Around that time, Nonparty 4 returned KRW 80,000,000 that received as liability insurance money to Samsung Fire, and around November 21, 2003, Nonparty 4 returned the above KRW 5,216,620 that he received to the Defendant as funeral expenses on the ground that “the perpetrator, such as Newdong Fire, agreed with all the perpetrator, and extinguished his civil liability.”

F. Meanwhile, New Eastern Fire received liability insurance amounting to KRW 64,00,000 on August 29, 2003 from Samsung Fire, and KRW 80,000,000 on September 30, 203, in total, and KRW 80,000,000 on September 30, 200, and filed a lawsuit claiming indemnity against the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 on December 2, 2004 against the Plaintiff in the same case, the Seoul Central District Court (Case Number omitted) rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay indemnity amounting to KRW 73,00,00 and damages for delay after July 25, 2003.

G. The plaintiff paid KRW 93 million to the Newdong Fire in accordance with the above judgment, and the defendant claimed the payment of insurance benefits to the defendant by claiming that the above payment constitutes money and valuables paid by the defendant as a substitute for the insurance benefits to be paid to the bereaved family members of the non-party 3 pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. On February 23, 2005, the defendant rejected the disposition of this case on the ground that "In the interpretation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, if the Corporation acquires the right to benefit of the beneficiary of industrial accident compensation insurance by subrogation, it shall be deemed that the business owner paid the insurance benefits to the worker by substitute," and insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall not be deemed that the State has the nature of directly compensating the worker's damages from the standpoint of the insurer, but it does not have the nature of liability insurance for damages under the civil law, since the right to indemnity against the plaintiff of the insurer against the plaintiff of the vehicle is based on the employer's liability claim under Article 756 of the Civil Act, not the accident compensation claim under the Labor Standards Act."

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 93 million to the Shindong Fire constitutes a case where Nonparty 3, who is an employee belonging to the Plaintiff, paid in advance money and valuables equivalent to insurance benefits for the same reason as that of the grounds for paying insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act for occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, to the bereaved family members of Nonparty 3, the beneficiary, and thus, it is obvious that the money and valuables in question were paid in substitution

(b) Related statutes;

Article 55-2 (Subrogation of Right to Receive Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act)

In case where the insured has paid in advance the money and valuables equivalent to the insurance benefits under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes for any occupational accident of his worker, for the same reason as the cause for payment of the insurance benefits under this Act, and where it is deemed that such money and valuables have been paid as a substitute for the insurance benefits, the insured shall subrogate the right to receive the insurance benefits of the relevant beneficiary under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (the new Article of this Act shall be established

Article 49 (Subrogation of Right to Receive Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance)

(1) If any insured person intends to receive insurance benefits in subrogation of the beneficiary of insurance benefits pursuant to Article 55-2 of the Act, he shall make a claim to the Corporation, accompanied by documents attesting such fact.

C. Determination

In relation to the instant traffic accident against Nonparty 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 93 million to Newdong Fire.

However, the non-party 4, who is the non-party 3's bereaved family member, received the above liability insurance amount of KRW 80 million from Samsung Fire and received the above liability insurance amount of KRW 170 million on the premise that the defendant again did not receive the above liability insurance amount of KRW 170 million on the premise that the compensation compensation and funeral expenses were limited within the scope of receiving the liability insurance amount, and the non-party 4, who is the non-party 3's bereaved family member, received the above insurance amount of KRW 170 million from Shindong Fire. The non-party 4, who paid the above insurance amount of KRW 170 million, filed a lawsuit based on the employer compensation liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act with the plaintiff about the remaining part of the above liability insurance amount of KRW 170 million,000,000,000 from the above judgment, can not be deemed to have paid the above insurance amount of KRW 93 million to the non-party 4, who is the beneficiary of his own civil liability insurance amount (see the plaintiff 29828.3 million.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the substitute payment of the plaintiff is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho