In case of receiving medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, whether the victim’s negligence is deducted from the amount of damages of the said medical care benefits (affirmative)

Even in cases where the Plaintiff, a victim, received medical care benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and did not claim medical expenses, it is justified that the Defendant deducted the amount calculated by the ratio of negligence of the Plaintiff from the above medical care benefits already received by the Defendant’s defense.

Article 11 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2316 Delivered on June 23, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

Hanyang Development Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3790 delivered on November 27, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

A beneficiary of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not limit the right to claim insurance benefits in accordance with the provisions of comparative negligence such as civil law even if the disaster is caused by negligence, and when the beneficiary has received insurance benefits, the policyholder is exempted from liability for damages in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Civil law and other laws to the extent of the amount

However, the beneficiary does not claim insurance benefits against the State, but where the beneficiary who is the insured for tort claims compensation against the employer, the provision of comparative negligence shall apply mutatis mutandis (Article 763 and Article 396 of the Civil Act). Thus, even if the plaintiff, the victim, received medical care benefits pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the defendant, the employer, even if he did not claim medical care benefits, should deduct the amount equivalent to the defendant's negligence from the amount of compensation for the accident, so the defendant's negligence should also be deducted from the amount of compensation for the accident already received, and as a result of the court's deliberation, if the victim is found to be negligent, it shall be considered in determining the range of compensation for the remaining portion after deducting medical care expenses (refer to Supreme Court Decision 80Da452 delivered on May 27, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 75Da153 delivered on July 22, 1975). Accordingly, the court below's decision that the plaintiff was negligent in calculating the amount of compensation for the plaintiff's medical care benefits already paid to the plaintiff.

With respect to Section 2:

The court below held that the plaintiff lost 20% of his work ability on the ground that the plaintiff's work ability constitutes an urban ordinary worker because it is not a sacrife nor a supplementary work. In light of the records, the court below's finding of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the law of good faith, such as the paper. All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)