In a case where, while working as an industrial trainee, the wife of the Vietnam employee who was divingd and died in the company’s dormitory applied for the payment of bereaved family benefits, etc., but the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Corporation submitted an application for payment at the end of three years after the deceased’s death and made a disposition of site wages on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the right to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has expired, the case holding that, on the ground that there is sufficient grounds to deem that the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service had committed an act to believe that it is unnecessary to submit separate claims for bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the bereaved family members before the expiration of the prescription period,

Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 36(1), 5, 7, and 112(1)1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 201); Article 21(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22492, Nov. 15, 2010)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 2010Nu2365 decided April 22, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The exercise of a debtor's right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our Civil Act. Thus, in special circumstances, such as where the debtor has made it impossible or considerably difficult for the creditor to exercise his right or the interruption of prescription before the expiration of the statute of limitations, or acted to make such measures unnecessary, or the creditor has objectively obstructed the creditor from exercising his right, or where the debtor has shown the same attitude as not to invoke the statute of limitations after the expiration of the statute of limitations, or where the debtor has made the right holder trust it, or where other creditors under the same conditions receive the repayment of the debt, etc., it is considerably unreasonable or unfair to allow the debtor to claim the completion of the statute of limitations as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da3232, Oct. 25, 2002; 209Da72599, Jun. 30, 2011).

The lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of survivors’ benefits, etc. of this case cannot be deemed to have extinguished by prescription, on the ground that the Defendant’s claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits, etc. of this case was submitted at the time three years have elapsed since the deceased’s death and the extinctive prescription of the right to

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased non-party 2") entered the deceased non-party 2 on July 26, 2004 as the deceased non-party 1's husband and non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 8's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 8's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 3's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 3's deceased report.

Examining the aforementioned factual basis in light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010); Article 36(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21(2) (the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses shall be paid at the request of a person entitled to receive insurance benefits under Articles 62 and 71); Article 21(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22492, Nov. 15, 2010) (the person intending to receive insurance benefits under Article 36(2) of the Act shall file an application for or file a claim for insurance benefits under paragraph (1) of the same Article with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service; the Defendant’s compensation team employees, non-party 3, etc., who were bereaved family members, did not appear to constitute an abuse of rights based on the Plaintiff’s request for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses.

Ultimately, the lower court’s determination that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the right to claim the payment of survivors’ benefits, etc. of this case cannot be deemed to have expired by prescription was inappropriate, but is justifiable in its conclusion that the instant disposition was unlawful. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)