logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1993. 9. 10. 선고 93다10651 판결
[손해배상(산)][공1993.11.1.(955),2730]
Main Issues

In case of deducting temporary layoff benefits from a worker's lost profit loss, the period to be deducted;

Summary of Judgment

When a worker under medical care receives temporary layoff benefits, the insured shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act within the limit of such amount, but the purpose of temporary layoff benefits under Article 9-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is to guarantee the minimum standard of living of the worker by paying a certain amount of benefits during the period of non-employment due to occupational injury or disease. Therefore, if the insured should deduct the amount of temporary layoff benefits from the amount of damages of the lost profit of the beneficiary, it shall be deducted only from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost profit during the period of temporary closure.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 763 (Article 393 of the Civil Act), Articles 9-4 and 11(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 76Da3034 Delivered on April 26, 1977

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant-Appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1548 delivered on May 2, 200

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na27203 delivered on January 28, 1993

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below as to the point out of the theory of lawsuit is justified in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the liability for damages, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the judgment below that held the plaintiff 1's negligence in the accident of this case as 60% is acceptable if the circumstances of this case are the same as the original judgment, and there is no error of law by erroneous determination of the rate of negligence like the theory of lawsuit, and it is without merit.

When a worker under medical care receives temporary layoff benefits, the insured shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act within the limit of such amount (Article 11(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), but the purpose of Article 9-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is to guarantee the minimum standard of living of the worker by paying a certain amount of benefits during the period of non-employment due to occupational injury or disease. Therefore, in cases where the insured should deduct the amount of temporary layoff benefits from the amount of damages of the lost profit of the beneficiary, the insured shall deduct it only from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost profit during the period of suspension. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1993.1.28.선고 92나27203
본문참조조문