Whether a company may file a claim against the State for the payment of insurance benefits with respect to a company whose bereaved family members received a favorable judgment after a disposition of refusal against a claim for bereaved family's benefits has become final and conclusive, and where such bereaved family members received a favorable judgment against the company.

In order for the business owner to claim for the payment of the insurance benefits in delay to the Minister of Labor, the business owner should pay the amount of money or goods equivalent to the insurance benefits for the same reason as the reason for the insurance benefits to the beneficiary, and the money or goods paid by the business owner shall be deemed to have been paid in delay. However, in case where the victim's bereaved family members claimed for survivors' benefits but the rejection disposition becomes final and conclusive, even if the compensation for survivors was paid in advance by being recognized as a occupational accident in civil litigation against the relevant business owner, the business owner shall not be deemed

Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

Han Jin Transportation Corporation

The head of the Daegu Southern District Labor Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the defendant against the plaintiff on March 16, 1992 on the site payment of the transferred money shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged by Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 4-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 5-2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, and 5-2.

On June 21, 1982, Nonparty 2 entered the Plaintiff Company, which is subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and worked as the head of the business division. On July 14, 1989, Nonparty 2 complained of the symptoms that Nonparty 2 was sent back to the hospital while working at around 09:30 on July 14, 1989, and Nonparty 2 was receiving treatment after being sent back to the hospital, but died with the acute fluence around 12:05 on the same day.

Accordingly, on November 22 of the same year, the non-party Kim Jong-ho, the wife of Park Jong-ho requested the defendant to pay bereaved family benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on the ground that the death of Park Jong-ho constitutes an occupational accident, but the defendant rejected it on November 24 of the same year on the ground that it was an occupational accident.

When the deceased was dissatisfied with the rejection disposition and the review and review were all dismissed, the plaintiff company did not institute an administrative litigation. On November 1, 1990, the plaintiff company filed a civil lawsuit against the plaintiff company for the payment of bereaved family's compensation under the Labor Standards Act against the Daegu District Court 90Kahap19859, which was rendered a favorable judgment to pay bereaved family's compensation for the reason that the death of stuff constitutes an occupational accident (the first instance court filed a lawsuit with the deceased Kim Jong-ho, but the children except the deceased's children were not appealed from the dismissal judgment, on the ground that the deceased company and the deceased were attributed to the wife, and only the plaintiff company and the deceased appealed appealed, and the Kim Jong-sung expanded the purport of the claim for the full payment of bereaved family's compensation at the appellate court, which became final and conclusive on January 8, 192).

Accordingly, on January 15 of the same year, the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 24,760,00,000,000, including bereaved family's compensation, to the deceased Kim Jong-soo in accordance with this judgment. On February 7 of the same year, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the delayed insurance benefits. However, the Defendant decided not to pay the insurance benefits in arrears (hereinafter the instant disposition) on March 16 of the same year since the Plaintiff paid the delayed insurance benefits after the death of stuff became final and conclusive as a result of the occupational accident.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The defendant cannot be bound by the administrative agency because it was recognized as an occupational accident in civil procedure, and the rejection disposition against the claim for survivors' benefits against the deceased deceased has already become final and conclusive, so the payment of compensation for survivors of the plaintiff company cannot be deemed to have been paid in delay. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is justifiable, as long as the plaintiff is recognized as an occupational accident and paid compensation for survivors' benefits as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, it would be the amount of money corresponding to the survivors' benefits, etc. of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and therefore, it is argued that the insurance benefits are paid in delay, and that the disposition of this case is unlawful.

According to Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in a case where the business owner has paid in advance the amount equivalent to the insurance benefits under the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes for the same reason as the reason for the insurance benefits under the Act, and where the said money and valuables may be deemed to have been paid in delay, the business owner may claim the relevant amount to the Minister of Labor (it shall be delegated to the defendant under Article 73 (1) 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act). According to this, insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act have the nature of directly compensating the damages of the worker due to the occupational accident which the business owner is obliged to compensate under the Labor Standards Act from the standpoint of the insurer. Thus, in a case where the business owner has paid the insurance benefits due to the occupational accident, before the payment of the insurance benefits due to the occupational accident, the business owner has paid compensation related to the loss of income, or compensation for the actual profit due to death, if the said money and valuables are of the same nature as the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the State should ultimately bear the amount.

However, in the case of this case, Kim Jong-soo filed a claim for bereaved family's benefits with the defendant and rejected the request, all of which were dismissed, and the rejection disposition becomes final and conclusive due to the failure to institute an administrative litigation within a legitimate period of time. Even if the rejection disposition was found to fall under occupational accidents, as long as the rejection disposition becomes final and conclusive, the defendant is not obligated to pay bereaved family's benefits. Therefore, even if the plaintiff paid bereaved family's compensation benefits to the defendant to the defendant by civil judgment recognized by the company as occupational accidents, since it becomes final and conclusive after the defendant has no obligation to pay bereaved family's benefits, it cannot be viewed as falling under the case where the business owner pays the money equivalent to the amount of the insurance benefits to the beneficiary, or "the insurance benefits are paid in person", the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for lack of merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)