Whether only nursing expenses can be paid as nursing benefits after receiving legal treatment for the prevention of and compensation for an old school safety accident (affirmative), and the meaning of “after receiving treatment” here.

Article 38(1) of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “School Safety Accident Compensation Act”) provides that “The nursing benefits shall be paid to the beneficiaries or their guardians, etc. who actually under the provisions of Article 36 in cases where the person who received the medical care benefits under the provisions of Article 36 needs medical care at all or from time after receiving the medical care.” Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Compensation Act provides that “The payment of nursing benefits shall be paid monthly on the date on which the nursing is actually taken place,” and thus, only the nursing expenses actually paid on the day when the nursing is taken during the period after receiving the medical care can be paid as nursing benefits under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act. Here, “after receiving the medical care” should be deemed as “after the symptoms are no longer expected, and after the symptoms are fixed.”

Article 38 of the former Act on Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (Amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201); Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han & Yang LLC, Attorneys Choi Il-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City School Safety Mutual Aid Association (Attorney Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na59433 decided August 18, 2011

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da77238 Decided December 13, 2012

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na647 decided September 27, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Article 38(1) of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “School Safety Compensation Act”) provides that “The nursing benefits shall be paid to the beneficiaries or their guardians, etc. who actually under the provision of Article 36 in cases where the person who received the medical care benefits under the provision of Article 36 needs medical care at a regular or occasional time after receiving the medical care.” Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Compensation Act provides that “The payment of nursing benefits shall be paid monthly on the date on which the nursing is actually performed.” Thus, only the nursing expenses for which the nursing is actually performed during the period after receiving the medical care can be paid as nursing benefits under the School Safety Compensation Act.” The term “after receiving the medical care” should be deemed to be “after the treatment no longer expected, and after the symptoms are fixed.”

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below did not examine whether the effect of treatment was no longer expected for the plaintiff, who was receiving an injury such as sacrife and safaf, etc. from an injury of the accident of this case, and caused the plaintiff to a fixed state of symptoms. The court below's reasoning that the plaintiff cannot be viewed as nursing expenses after receiving nursing expenses after receiving nursing expenses after June 9, 201, for the reason that the plaintiff was hospitalized or a part of the plaintiff's own claims for medical care benefits, is not appropriate, but the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for nursing expenses after June 9, 201 on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's parent actually served the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal or did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of nursing benefits under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that Article 5 (3) of the defendant's standards for the payment of mutual aid benefits from the School Safety Mutual Aid Association cannot be applied to the average wage, which is an element for calculating the plaintiff's disability benefits. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)