1. Relationship between a claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and a claim for damages caused by unlawful acts;

2. Validity of an agreement that the industrial accident insurance carried out between the disaster and the business owner shall not be included in the compensation for damage.

1. The purpose of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is to compensate for losses caused by workers' accidents, so if an occupational accident which causes the insurance benefits at the same time meets the requirements of tort, if the beneficiary under the same Act has received compensation for damages caused by tort in relation to the accident, the beneficiary's right to claim insurance benefits within the scope of the tort shall be extinguished, and therefore the State shall be exempted from the obligation

2. In the settlement between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty who was injured due to the instant accident and the Nonparty, the amount of insurance benefits arising from the instant accident is not included in the compensation for damages, and the Plaintiff agreed not to receive the industrial accident insurance money directly, and such agreement is not binding on the Defendant, a third party.

Articles 1, 9, 11, 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 87 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da2260 delivered on October 14, 1980 (II), Article 11(1)167 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, No. 646, 1316)

Plaintiff

Ministry of Labor and the head of Seoul Gwanak-gu office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 25, 1980 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff is entitled to the above 1-1 (Ruling for Extension of Period of Temporary Disability Compensation Benefits) 2 (Application 2.1), 2-1 (Application Form for Temporary Disability Compensation Benefits), 3-1 (Judgment No. 6), 8 (Agreement No. 50), and 9 (Appeal No. 9). The plaintiff is entitled to the above 2-1-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to receive damages for the same reasons as the above 9-2 of the judgment No. 1-2 of the court below's decision No. 97. The plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for the same reasons as the above 9-2 of the judgment No. 1-2 of the court below's decision No. 97. The plaintiff is entitled to the above 2-1-2 of the court below's decision No. 977, Sep. 12, 1978; the plaintiff is entitled to the above 9-2 of the court below's judgment No.

The Plaintiff’s ground for payment of temporary layoff benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act differs from their respective purport and requirements. Thus, even if the Plaintiff received compensation for damages by the above civil judgment regarding the instant accident, it is unlawful for the Defendant to accept the Plaintiff’s application for each of the instant insurance benefits on the ground of damages under the above civil judgment. In light of the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and Article 87 of the Labor Standards Act, it is obvious that the Plaintiff was exempt from the liability for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, within the limit of 97 days, if the occupational accident, which caused insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, was 90,000 won for the above accident, was included in 190 won and 190 won for the above accident, and it is obvious that the Plaintiff had already been exempt from the liability for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, 190 won and 200 won for the above accident, based on the aforementioned evidence No. 6 (private death). 197 months for the total amount of damages.

Therefore, the defendant's refusal of payment of the industrial accident insurance benefits stated in the purport of the claim against the plaintiff is lawful, so the claim of this case seeking the revocation of the claim is without merit under the premise that the disposition is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Yellowdon (Presiding Judge)