[1] The legal nature of the disaster compensation benefits under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act and the nature of the lawsuit claiming the payment of such disaster compensation benefits (=party suit in public law)

[2] The validity of an agreement on the claim for payment of disaster compensation benefits under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (negative)

[3] The scope of "person whose disability grade is not determined as of the closing date of a coal industry under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act"

[4] The legal nature of the provision on the payment of mine closure countermeasure expenses established by the Coal Industry Rationalization Business Bureau pursuant to Article 42-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (=general rule

[5] Whether an expression of intent to refuse to pay disaster compensation benefits by the coal industry rationalization project team is an administrative disposition (negative), and the method of appeal against such expression (=party litigation)

[1] Under Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act and Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, disaster compensation benefits paid to workers suffering from occupational accidents in a mine closed as a kind of mine closure countermeasure expenses are characteristic of consolation benefits paid in addition to ordinary accident compensation in a social security level for the retired workers suffering from special difficulties such as occupational accidents due to the accident occurred in the mine in question, in light of the domestic coal supply and demand situation, the continuation of coal without taking into account the coal mine in Korea is not considered desirable for the balanced development of the national economy. The right to claim the payment of such disaster compensation benefits is a public law right, and the lawsuit seeking the payment is a party lawsuit under public law, which is a legal relationship under public law.

[2] Even if there was an agreement between the parties on the claim for payment of disaster compensation benefits under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act, such agreement shall be deemed null and void.

[3] According to the provisions of Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act and Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the coal mining business operator of a mine satisfying a certain standard completes the registration of extinction of the mining right, the coal industry rationalization business team shall pay various items of mine closure countermeasure expenses to the retired workers, coal mining business operators, etc. of the mine in question, and one of them shall be subject to the payment of the mine closure countermeasure expenses. The coal industry business operator's disability grade shall be included in the first re-treatment compensation for the person who suffered occupational accidents during the period from one year to one day after the date determined by the coal industry deliberation committee for confirmation of whether or not the coal mining business operator is entitled to the payment of the mine closure countermeasure expenses, and regardless of the period of the mine closure, the amount of the disaster compensation benefits shall be the same amount as the lump-sum disability compensation benefits under Article 42 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act or the lump-sum survivors compensation benefits under Article 43 (1) of the same Act.

[4] The coal industry rationalization project team established pursuant to Article 42-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act provides only the procedure for the payment of mine closure countermeasure expenses, and its contents are not merely an internal business practice standard of the coal industry rationalization project team nor an external effect to the public or a court.

[5] If the purport of Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act and Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are gathered, the right to claim the payment of disaster consolation benefits held by the re-employed worker against the Coal Industry Rationalization Business Group is naturally generated if the payment requirements stipulated in the above provision are met, and the amount is determined, and the claim or amount is not determined depending on whether or not the above business entity's decision is determined. Thus, even if the above business entity expressed its intent to refuse the payment of all or part of the disaster consolation benefits, the expression of intention is not an administrative disposition that forms and determines the claim for disaster consolation benefits, but it is merely an actual and legal opinion as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay as a party to a legal relationship under public law. Thus, if the above business entity objects to the expression of intent to refuse the payment of the disaster consolation benefits indicated by the business entity, not an appeal litigation against the business entity should be filed directly under public law.

[1] Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act; Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act; Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act; Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act / [3] Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act; Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act; Articles 42 (1) and 43 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [4] Article 42-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act / [5] Article 2 (1) 1 and 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 39-3 (1) 4 of the Coal Industry Act; Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act

[1] [5] Supreme Court Decision 95Da28960 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1997) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13209 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3105) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5046 delivered on December 23, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 252) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 4293Da60 Delivered on November 2, 1961; Supreme Court Decision 98Du8919 delivered on August 21, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2328) / [5] Supreme Court Order 97Ma1689 delivered on September 23, 196 (Gong199Ha, 196)

Plaintiff

Coal Industry Rationalization Business Association (Attorney Lee Ho-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu47912 delivered on June 12, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the refusal of waiver

Under Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), disaster compensation benefits paid to workers suffering from occupational accidents in a mine closed in the form of a kind of mine closure countermeasure expenses, shall have the nature of consolation benefits paid in addition to ordinary accident compensation in a social security level for retired workers who suffer from special difficulties in their occupation, etc. in light of the supply and demand of domestic coal, and in the mine closed in the Republic of Korea, the continuation of coal without considering the supply and demand of coal shall be deemed inappropriate for the balanced development of the national economy. The decision of the court below to the purport that the right to claim the payment of disaster compensation benefits as a right under public law and the lawsuit seeking its payment constitutes a lawsuit by a party, which is a legal relationship under public law, is justified (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da28960, May 30, 199).

2. As to the requirement for payment of disaster consolation benefits

According to Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Act and Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, when a coal mining business operator of a mine which meets a certain standard completes the registration of extinction of mining rights, the defendant shall pay the expenses for mine closure measures for various items to the retired workers, coal mining business operators, etc., one of which is the object of the expenses for mine closure measures, and shall not be included in the payment procedure for the first time after the completion of the first half of the period from one to nine years retroactively from the date determined by the Coal Industry Deliberation Committee which deliberated on whether or not the coal mining business operator is entitled to the expenses for mine closure measures, and the grade of disability shall be determined as of the date of closure or the period from one to nine days before the date of closure, or even after the date of the occurrence of the disaster, and the amount of the accident compensation benefits shall not be included in the payment procedure for the second half of the first half of the Act.

The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows. On July 21, 1994, when the plaintiff worked as the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor fluor fluoral fluor fluor fluor fluor f.

3. It shall be deemed ex officio.

If the purport of Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Act and each subparagraph of Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree are gathered, the right to claim payment of disaster consolation benefits against the defendant naturally occurs if the requirements for payment as stipulated by the above provision are met, and the amount thereof are determined, or the defendant's decision does not depend on the occurrence or amount of the claim. Thus, even if the defendant expressed his/her intention to refuse payment of all or part of the disaster consolation benefits, such declaration of intention is not an administrative disposition that forms and determines the right to claim payment of disaster consolation benefits, but it is merely an expression of the actual and legal opinion as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay as one of the parties to the legal relations under public law, not an appeal against the defendant regarding the expression of intent to refuse payment of disaster consolation benefits expressed by the defendant. Thus, if the defendant is dissatisfied with the expression of intention to refuse payment of the disaster consolation benefits, it is not required to file a lawsuit against the party directly under public law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Da196.

In this regard, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation by deeming the defendant's expression of intention to refuse payment of disaster compensation benefits as an administrative disposition is unlawful. In such a case, the court below should explain whether the plaintiff seeks direct payment of disaster compensation benefits and allow the plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit of this case unless it is changed to a party suit under public law. However, the court below's determination that accepted the lawsuit of this case cannot avoid reversal.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and 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)