Plaintiff (Law Firm Cho & Lee, Attorneys Cho Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Lee e-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 7, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap13474 decided July 4, 2013

1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering the revocation of the disposition of revocation of the payment decision of medical care benefits, bereaved family benefits, funeral expenses shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

On December 16, 2011, the Defendant revoked both the disposition revoking the decision on the payment of medical care benefits, bereaved family benefits, and funeral expenses and the disposition collecting unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, with the exception that the part on the determination of "the illegality of each disposition of this case" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 12th to 15th, up to 12th) is as stated in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(3) Whether each disposition of this case is unlawful

(A) Legal principles

If a citizen acquires a certain benefit and right through a certain administrative disposition, the administrative disposition to revoke the previous administrative disposition is a separate administrative disposition deprived of the existing interest and right of the person who already acquired it, and the public necessity or cancellation in the administrative disposition to be revoked should be required. Furthermore, even if there is a defect in the administrative disposition, etc., the administrative disposition can be revoked only if it is strong to justify the disadvantage of the party in the public interest after comparing and comparing the necessity of the public interest and the disadvantage such as the protection of trust and the infringement of the stability of legal life, etc. to be suffered by the party due to the cancellation, and then the burden of proof on the defect or necessity to revoke is an administrative agency that has violated the existing interest and right (Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2375 Decided March 29, 2012).

(B) Whether the revocation disposition of this case is unlawful

We examine the illegality of the revocation of the preceding disposition of this case where the payment decision of medical care benefits, bereaved family benefits, and funeral expenses is made.

6. The accident of this case is the main cause of driving under the influence of the deceased. Since the death of the deceased does not constitute an occupational accident, the preceding disposition is deemed to be an unlawful disposition. Furthermore, considering the overall purport of the above recognition and the evidence as seen earlier, the deceased’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol was 0.213%. This is the most serious criminal during driving under the Road Traffic Act. ② The cancellation of the right to receive insurance benefits on the basis of the accident of this case is deemed to be necessary for public interest in terms of ensuring the legality of administration. ③ The deceased’s bereaved family members are entitled to receive insurance benefits from the accident of this case, including the Plaintiff’s physical health care benefits, for a long time on behalf of the deceased. If the accident of this case is deemed to fall under the category of an industrial accident of this case, the Defendant’s duty to receive insurance benefits on behalf of the deceased, including the Plaintiff’s physical health care benefits, and thus, the Defendant would be unlawful until the disaster of this case’s accident of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant’s revocation of the preceding disposition of this case is legitimate.

(C) Whether the collection disposition of this case is unlawful

We examine the illegality of the disposition of collecting the insurance benefits already paid by the defendant as unjust enrichment based on the preceding disposition of this case, such as the payment decision of medical care benefits, bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.

The following circumstances are considered as unlawful dispositions of the preceding disposition. However, the facts of the above recognition and the whole purport of the arguments are comprehensively taken into account: ① the defendant's application for medical care benefits, etc.; ② the investigation and judgment on the application for medical care benefits, etc. are responsible for the defendant; ② the driver's drinking operation in determining whether the traffic accident occurred while driving independently such as the accident is occupational accident; ③ the accident occurred in accordance with the business owner's instructions; ③ the accident occurred in the course of business trip; and ③ the accident occurred due to the excess, the age limit at the time of the accident; ④ the driver's negligence by stopping the vehicle on the side; ④ the plaintiff's bereaved family at the time of the accident was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was drinking, but it was not aware that the defendant had already paid the insurance benefits of this case for the reason that the defendant had already paid the insurance benefits of this case for the reason that the defendant had already paid the insurance benefits of this case for the reason that the defendant had already paid the insurance benefits of this case to the plaintiff's children.

Therefore, the Defendant’s collection disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the collection disposition of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation against the cancellation disposition of the preceding disposition of this case where the payment decision of medical care benefits, bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses was made, shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the part against the defendant who ordered the cancellation of the preceding disposition of this case among the judgment of the first instance court which made a different conclusion shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part shall be dismissed, and the remaining

Judges Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)