In a case where a disabled person dies or his/her family does not live together with the disabled person's domicile under the resident registration card after being issued a car sign pursuant to Article 39(2) of the former Welfare Act and Articles 26 and 27 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (negative)

Article 39(2) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Amended by Act No. 932, Jan. 18, 2010) and Articles 26 and 27 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs No. 142, Dec. 23, 2009); and where a disabled person dies or his/her family member does not live together with the disabled person's domicile on his/her resident registration card, and the disabled person's family member is no longer entitled to receive benefits and has no authority to receive benefits.

Article 39(2) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Amended by Act No. 932, Jan. 18, 2010); Articles 26 and 27 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs No. 142, Dec. 23, 2009); Article 741 of the Civil Act

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Choi Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Na2392 Decided May 6, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court terminates the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount case, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be deemed as the ground for appeal for the small amount case, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," it shall be deemed that the error in applying the interpretation of the substantive law is possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 203Da1878, Aug. 20, 2004; 2012Da

In accordance with the Welfare Act of the Disabled Persons Act, which is at issue in this case, the benefit of discount support according to the LPG purchase price support program under the Welfare Act of the Disabled Persons Act, where the disabled and his/her guardian have been separated from each other but the benefit continues to exist, there is no Supreme Court precedent as to whether the liability for return of unjust enrichment pursuant to Article 741 of the Civil Act is recognized, and there is a situation where the lower court's decision is different. Therefore, the court below

2. A. Article 32(1) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 932, Jan. 18, 2010; hereinafter “Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) provides that “persons with disabilities, their legal representatives or guardians prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall register the state of disability and other matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs with the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu shall issue a registration certificate if persons with disabilities who have applied for registration meet the standards under Article 2.” Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs No. 142, Dec. 23, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) provides that “a person who intends to apply for registration of persons with disabilities pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall submit an application for registration of persons with disabilities [attached Form 1] to the head of Si/Gun/Gu.”

B. Article 9(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that the State and local governments are responsible for improving the welfare of persons with disabilities by supporting self-reliance of persons with disabilities and protecting persons with disabilities in need of protection. In addition, Article 39(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that “the State and local governments and other public organizations shall take necessary measures, such as reduction and exemption of taxes in order to allow persons with disabilities to conveniently use cars, etc. which are means of mobility and to reduce their economic burden.” Article 9(2) of the same Act provides that “The head of Si/Gun/Gu shall issue a sign indicating that persons with disabilities are motor vehicles, etc. used by persons with disabilities so as to facilitate support of cars, etc. used by persons with disabilities pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities” (hereinafter referred to as “motor vehicle sign”), along with the name of the persons with disabilities registered pursuant to Article 32 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities or his/her lineal ascendants and descendants and their addresses in the name of the persons with disabilities.”

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health and Welfare established and published the procedures for the Support Project for Disabled Persons in 2006 (hereinafter “the instant guidelines”) to support tax revenue among the purchase price for disabled cars (hereinafter “the instant Support Project”). In other words, the instant guidelines provide that “the disabled car sign purchased by using a welfare card or guardian card is attached to the disabled car sign, and the guardian card is the object of support for the disabled car owner registered in the name of the disabled or his/her family.” ② The guardian card is one family member residing with the disabled and driving directly on the ELP and directly with the ELP car, and (3) The guardian card provides that the guardian card should be issued to the person who applied for the issuance of information to the person who applied for the issuance of the welfare card, and only one spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, lineal descendant, and sibling, one of his/her family members, and the guardian card and the guardian card of the disabled who actually resides in the Ministry of Health and Welfare shall be issued with the ELP card, and it shall not be issued with the guardian card or guardian card even if it is not.”

3. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, ① the Defendant, as a child of the Nonparty, who is a disabled person, resided with the Nonparty and used the guardian card from the Plaintiff at the time of the Government-Si ( Address 1 omitted). The Defendant transferred on March 18, 2008 to ( Address 2 omitted) and 301, thereby being separated from the Nonparty’s resident registration. This was continued until the Defendant re-transfered to ( Address 1 omitted) on July 7, 2008, and ② from March 18, 2008 to August 29, 2009 by using the guardian card from March 18, 2008 to August 29, 2009.

4. We examine the above facts in light of the provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes.

A. (1) The determination of registration of a disabled person under Article 32(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities is effective to ascertain whether the applicant for registration falls under the disability grade prescribed in Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (the recognition of disability) and the degree of such disability falls under any disability grade (the assessment of disability grade) and grant the status that the applicant for registration can enjoy various welfare benefits provided pursuant to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities depending on the disability grade, etc. As such, if the registration of a disabled person is made pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, he/she shall be deemed to have the right to receive various social security benefits provided for the welfare of persons with disabilities according to the disability grade. Therefore, the registered disabled person shall be deemed to

(2) However, Article 39(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities imposes the duty to devise necessary support measures, such as tax reduction or exemption on the part of the State, etc. for convenience, appearance, and reduction of economic burden, and does not directly stipulate the specific support measures. However, Article 39(2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that a disabled motor vehicle sign shall be issued for convenience in supporting cars, etc. used by the disabled. According to delegation under Article 39(4) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the Enforcement Rule provides for the subject of the issuance of a disabled motor vehicle sign (Article 26) and the procedure thereof (Article 27). Accordingly, only where a disabled person registered under Article 32 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities or his/her family members living together with a disabled person and a person’s family members living together with a resident registration card is issued, the disabled motor vehicle sign shall be deemed as having the qualification or authority to possess the benefits received from the State, etc. as a result of

(3) Article 9 of the Framework Act on Social Security, which falls under the general law of social security supply and demand relations, provides that “All citizens shall have the right to receive social security benefits (hereinafter “social security benefits”) as prescribed by the social security-related statutes, so determining the existence or scope of the right to receive social security benefits can be deemed “social security-related statutes” and the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and the Enforcement Rules thereof can be deemed to fall under the social security-related statutes with legal effect, but the instant guidelines that contain specific and practical provisions, such as the subject and method of the welfare project for persons with disabilities, are merely administrative regulations,

(4) According to the instant guidelines, the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong having jurisdiction over resident registration affairs shall frequently search and verify whether a person who received a resident registration card for a disabled person has a separate relationship with the disabled person, and shall take measures to suspend the purchase function of discount with respect to the guardian card for the guardian of the disabled person. However, this merely prescribes the procedures for performing duties within the administration to prevent the wrongful receipt of subsidies by the guardian who lost his/her eligibility to receive benefits, and it is difficult to view that there was any reason for the administrative agency regarding the fraudulent receipt of subsidies by the guardian who lost his/her eligibility to receive benefits.

(5) In full view of the foregoing circumstances, in a case where a disabled person dies or his/her family does not live together with the disabled person or his/her family does not share his/her domicile on the resident registration card after being issued a disabled person car sign in accordance with due process under Article 39(2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and each corresponding provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Rule, it is no longer deemed that the person is eligible or entitled to receive benefits and hold

(6) Therefore, the defendant continued to use the guardian card whose capacity to receive the instant discount benefit has not been suspended even though he lost the eligibility to receive the instant discount benefit during the period of separation from the disabled and the household, and the plaintiff knew of such circumstance and provided the amount equivalent to the above discount subsidy to the defendant by paying the amount equivalent to the amount of the tax revenue incurred by the defendant in filling the EL for the period of separation from the above household in accordance with the method of subsidization set out in the instant guidelines. Therefore, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above amount by providing the defendant with the money in the name of the discount subsidy without any legal ground, while the defendant gains a profit equivalent to the same amount, the defendant must return the amount in the name of the discount subsidy received during the period of separation from the household to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s claim for return of discount benefits received from the Plaintiff during the period of separation between the Nonparty and the Plaintiff on the resident registration is not permissible on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment and exercise of unjust enrichment, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment and exercise of unjust enrichment and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)