Where the legal nature of bereaved family's compensation among the bereaved family's benefits under subparagraph 3 of Article 42 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and the grounds for the payment of benefits have occurred due to the third party's act, the Public Officials Pension Corporation or the local government's compensation

Of the bereaved family's benefits under Article 42 subparagraph 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the bereaved family's compensation is for the purpose of compensating for losses to the public officials or their bereaved family members who died of a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty, unlike other bereaved family's benefits under the same subparagraph, regardless of whether the bereaved family's compensation is a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty, and it is reasonable to view the compensation as the same kind of benefits as the passive compensation for tort in that the compensation is paid in order to compensate for losses or losses caused by the disease or injury incurred in the line of duty. Therefore, in the event the ground for the payment of compensation occurred due to a third party's act, the claim for consolation money should be excluded. The "beneficiary" under Article 33 (2) of the same Act refers to the person who has received the benefits from the Public Officials Pension Corporation or the local government from the relevant third party's act, and thus the Corporation or the local government that has paid compensation for damages to the third party of the beneficiary shall acquire only

Article 33(1), (2), and Article 42 subparag. 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Da2948 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1382), Supreme Court Decision 95Da18772 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2294), Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da36873 delivered on November 19, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2865)

Public Official Pension Corporation (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sim Law, Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na5622 delivered on June 24, 1998

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Of the bereaved family's benefits under Article 42 subparagraph 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the bereaved family's compensation benefits refer to benefits for the purpose of compensating for losses to the public officials or their bereaved family members who died of a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty, regardless of whether the bereaved family is a disease or injury for official duty, and it is reasonable to view the compensation as benefits of the same kind as passive compensation for losses caused by tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da36873, Nov. 19, 198; 97Da36873, Nov. 19, 198). Thus, where the ground for benefits occurred due to a third party's act, the right to claim compensation for damages should be excluded. The term "beneficiary" under Article 33 (2) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to the person who actually received compensation from the Public Officials Pension Corporation or a local government due to a third party's act, and thus, the Corporation or the local government is entitled to receive compensation for damages within the extent of 19787.297.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the deceased non-party 1's lost income as 31,472,008 won as to the scope of the right to indemnity of this case, and determined that out of the deceased's lost income of the above deceased's 63,507,60 won, the compensation for survivors paid by the plaintiff to non-party 2 was limited to 8,583,274 won, which is the statutory inheritance of non-party 2, among the deceased's lost income

However, in light of the records (the preparatory document dated August 12, 1997 and the record 68 through 69 pages), the plaintiff asserted the lost retirement pension and the lost retirement allowance as the damage claim against the defendant by the deceased, but the court below did not make any decision as to this. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment and the incomplete hearing which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)