Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The head of the Busan Central District Office in Ministry of Labor

September 1, 1981

The defendant's disposition of collecting benefits of KRW 2,018,430 against the plaintiff on December 26, 1980 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances on the collection disposition of insurance benefits;

Around 14:00 on March 7, 1980, Non-party stability, the electric power distribution cause of the Plaintiff Company, which is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder, died after falling into the wave of the safety-free belt while performing the safety-free zone installation work on the front week established on March 14:0, 1980, and the Defendant paid 6,728,100 won to the above non-party's bereaved family members. In short, the death of the worker due to the power wave of the safety-free belt constitutes a case where the user who is the insured was grossly negligent under Article 26-2 and 26-1 (3) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus, the Defendant collected the insurance benefits from the order of the Board of Audit and Inspection ordering the Plaintiff to collect the insurance benefits from the insured on December 26, 1980.

2. Claims and issues

The plaintiff's attorney argues that the payment of the insurance benefits in this case should be revoked because the plaintiff company is not only the defect of the safety-free zone but also the worker's method of use. In addition, the plaintiff company had an appropriate safety test at the time of purchasing it, but also conducted safety education on the method of use from time to time. Thus, the plaintiff company's act of collecting the insurance benefits in this case shall not be deemed to have gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff company. The defendant's performer argues that the payment of the insurance benefits in this case should be revoked because it is the only part of protecting the life of the safety-free zone to the power distribution personnel working at the front line. Since the plaintiff company's act of having the worker pay the safety-free zone with an abstract test only after a thorough examination, even though it is the only part of the equipment to protect the life of the safety-free zone, it is a serious negligence in violation of the laws and regulations on disaster prevention such as Article 64 of the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the collection disposition of the insurance benefits

3. Determination

(1) The plaintiff company shall use the front 7-day equipment with the 1st 7th 1st 7th 1st 7th 1st 7th 1st 7th 1st 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 2nd.

The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that the whole or part of the insurance benefits shall be collected from the insured if the insurance benefits were to be provided against the accidents caused by intention or gross negligence of the insured. According to Article 64-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the term “the intention or gross negligence of the insured as referred to in Article 26-2 (1) 3 of the Act” refers to the accidents caused by the insured’s failure to comply with the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the prevention of disasters or by negligence of the supervisory authorities, and Article 64 (1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that the employer shall take measures necessary to prevent the danger of the work, even if it was impossible to establish the standards for the safety measures to be taken by the Plaintiff at the same time because of the fact that the safety measures to be taken by the Plaintiff might not be taken by reason of the fact that the safety measures to be taken by the employees pursuant to the provisions of the above Article 64-2 (3) of the same Act are not appropriate, and the workers shall not be obliged to use the standards for the safety measures to prevent the accidents.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the collection disposition of insurance benefits in this case is illegal, is reasonable, and it is so accepted and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

September 29, 1981

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)