[1] The purport of Article 48 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act that "where a beneficiary has received or is able to receive insurance benefits under this Act, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason"

[2] The case holding that where a beneficiary under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was unable to receive the insurance benefits that should have been paid as a result of an administrative action without undergoing the pre-trial procedure against the rejection rejection disposition, it constitutes "cases where the beneficiary can receive the insurance benefits under Article 48 (1) of the same Act" and thus, the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act is exempted

[1] Article 48 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "where a beneficiary received or is able to receive insurance benefits under this Act, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason, and the purport of this provision is that the industrial accident compensation insurance has the nature of liability insurance for accident compensation, and that the employee shall first claim the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits for the industrial accident compensation insurance, and that the employer shall not be less favorable to the employee, while the employer has forced the worker to purchase the industrial accident compensation insurance and paid the insurance benefits, if the accident compensation is made in advance, then the employer would be deprived of the insurance benefits, and even if the employer can claim after the accident compensation after the accident, the legal relation among the parties concerned becomes complicated. In light of the above, if the employer is required to purchase the industrial accident compensation insurance and pay the insurance benefits in advance, the defect is that the employer is exempted from the liability

[2] The case holding that an employer's liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act is exempted in case where a beneficiary under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not entitled to receive insurance benefits in accordance with Article 48 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act because of the negligence of filing an administrative litigation without going through the procedure of the previous trial against the rejection disposition of insurance benefits, and thus, it constitutes "cases where the beneficiary

[1] Article 48(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 48(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Il-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sung bus Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Na4171 delivered on January 10, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. The court below determined that the non-party's death constitutes an accident on duty and thus, is liable for accident compensation in the case where the non-party's compensation for survivors and funeral expenses under Article 48 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act can be exempted under this Act on the ground that the non-party's death constitutes an accident on duty and the non-party's wife can receive insurance benefits under this Act on the ground that the plaintiff, his wife, without going through an administrative appeal, filed an administrative lawsuit immediately seeking revocation or invalidity confirmation of the above disposition, but the above part of the claim for revocation was dismissed on the ground that it was unlawful because it did not go through an administrative appeal procedure, and that the part of the claim for invalidation confirmation is not reasonable. The court below determined that the non-party's death constitutes an accident on duty and thus the non-party's compensation for survivors and funeral expenses under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is liable for accident compensation under Article 48 (1) of this Act on the ground that the beneficiary can receive insurance benefits under this Act on the ground that it did not receive the insurance benefits under this Act on the ground that it did not go through an administrative litigation (Article 1).

2. However, Article 48(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "if a beneficiary received or is able to receive insurance benefits under this Act, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act for the same reason, and the purport of this provision is that the industrial accident compensation insurance has the nature of liability insurance for accident compensation, and that the employee shall first claim industrial accident compensation benefits, and that the employee shall not be less favorable than the employee, even though the employer has forced the worker to purchase the industrial accident compensation insurance and paid the insurance premiums, if the employer makes the advance payment for the accident compensation again, it would result in unreasonable result that the employee would be deprived of the insurance benefits, and even if the employer can demand the State after the accident, even if the employer can demand the payment of the insurance benefits after the accident, it shall be deemed that the employer would be exempted from the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act. Despite the fact that the insurance benefits should have been paid, it does not change even if the beneficiary did not pay the insurance benefits by mistake, such as failing to perform the procedure in this case.

Therefore, as long as the lower court determined that the death of the Nonparty constitutes occupational accidents, the instant case was entitled to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act if the Plaintiff did not commit an error such as failing to implement the procedure for the pre-trial trial, and thus, the Defendant should be deemed to have been exempted from the liability for accident compensation under Article 48(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s claim for exemption from the liability for accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff does not fall under the case where the Plaintiff would be entitled to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, is limited to the interpretation of Article 48(1) of the Industrial

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)