(a) Requirements for transfer of administrative litigation on decision on insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

B. Character of the Minister of Labor’s notification of payment of unfair gains

(a) Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act provides for the method of filing an appeal against a decision on insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the administrative litigation on the decision on the insurance benefits under the same Act shall not be filed unless it has been done through all the procedures for the examination and reexamination under Article 3 of the same Act as the pre-determination requirement;

B. Since the disposition of notifying the Minister of Labor to collect double money from a person who received the insurance benefits by false or other unlawful means under the provisions of Article 14-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is related to the insurance benefits, a claim for cancellation of the disposition of notifying the payment of unjust double money should be regarded as an objection to the insurance benefits under Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination

(a) Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

Plaintiff

The head of the Suwon Regional Office of Labor

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu196 delivered on October 29, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act, a person who has an objection to insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall file a request for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, and a person who has an objection to such decision may file a request for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, and a person who has an objection to such decision may file an administrative litigation, and a person who has an objection to such request for review and reexamination and institution of administrative litigation shall file an administrative litigation, respectively, within 60 days from the date of receiving a notice

This provision provides for the method of appeal against the decision of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the administrative litigation against the decision of insurance benefits under the above Act can not be filed unless it goes through both the procedure of examination and reexamination under Article 3 of the above Act as a pre-determination requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu85, Nov. 12, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879, May 27, 1986).

In addition, since the disposition of notifying the Minister of Labor to collect double amount from a person who received the insurance benefits by false or other unlawful means in accordance with Article 14-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is related to the insurance benefits, a claim to revoke the notification of unjust double payment should be regarded as an objection to the insurance benefits provided by Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act.

As determined by the court below, it is clear that the plaintiff filed an administrative litigation of this case on February 13, 1987 without filing a request for re-examination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee, as to the defendant's notification of the payment of unjust gains on November 8, 1986, and the decision of dismissal was made on December 17 of the same year. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is illegal because it failed to properly transfer the re-examination file against the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which rejected the lawsuit of this case without examining the merits is justified.

In addition, in case where the plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition from the prosecutor of the competent Suwon District Prosecutors' Office regarding the defendant's filing of a criminal complaint against the plaintiff due to the violation of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the plaintiff is erroneous that the plaintiff could immediately file an administrative lawsuit without filing a request for reexamination, and the plaintiff's misleads the plaintiff to inform the plaintiff of the procedure for the transfer of the fact. Thus, the administrative litigation of this case is lawful. However, in light of the records of the case, there are no materials to recognize that the plaintiff's mistake was made as to the circumstances as alleged by the plaintiff, and even if there are such reasons, it cannot be said that the lawsuit of this case is legitimate. Thus,

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)