The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 80 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides that “If a beneficiary has received or is able to receive insurance benefits under this Act, an employer who is a policyholder is exempted from liability for accident compensation for the same cause under the Labor Standards Act (paragraph (1)), and where a beneficiary has received insurance benefits for the same cause under this Act, the employer shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of such amount (the proviso to paragraph (2)).” The main text of paragraph (3) provides that “Where a beneficiary has received any money and valuables equivalent to the insurance benefits under this Act for the same cause, the GEPS shall not pay the insurance benefits under this Act within the limit of the amount calculated by converting the money

Meanwhile, Article 87 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that “Where the Corporation has paid insurance benefits by a disaster caused by a third party’s act, it shall subrogate the beneficiary’s claim for damages to a third party within the limit of the amount of benefits paid (main sentence of paragraph (1)).” On the contrary, where the beneficiary has received damages from a third party, the Corporation shall not pay the industrial accident insurance benefits within the limit of the amount calculated by converting the amount of damages

In addition to the provisions of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act regarding “the relationship between industrial accident insurance benefits and other compensation or compensation,” the employer is prior to the payment of industrial accident insurance benefits in cases where: (i) where only one of the competing claims exists as the adjustment provisions exists as a result of the existence of adjustment provisions concerning one’s claims in relation to occupational accidents; (ii) the total amount of compensation for damages is different according to the order of claims; and (iii) the purpose of the adjustment provision regarding double transfer prohibition is not achieved; and thus, (iv)