The legislative purport of Articles 112(1)1 and 113 concerning the interruption of prescription and the interruption of prescription under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / The legal nature of the claim for insurance benefits under Article 36(2) of the same Act (i.e., declaration of intention in public law) / Whether Article 174 of the Civil Act concerning the effect of interruption of prescription against the claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act can be interpreted as being applied or applicable mutatis mutandis on the grounds of the provisions of Article 112(2) of the same Act

Article 112(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) provides that the extinctive prescription shall expire if the right to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not exercised for three years. Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that the extinctive prescription under Article 112 shall be interrupted by a beneficiary’s claim for insurance benefits under Article 36(2). The legislative purport of the legislation is to ensure the legal relationship relating to industrial accident compensation insurance as soon as possible, not to neglect the protection of disaster workers who claim their rights in accordance with the method prescribed in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

In addition, even if a person is eligible to receive insurance benefits by falling under the requirements for the payment of insurance benefits provided for in the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, it is not a specific claim for benefits only by satisfying such requirements, but a specific claim for benefits arises only after the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service makes a decision on the insurance benefits upon the beneficiary's claim for insurance benefits. In this regard, a claim for insurance benefits under Article 36 (2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act can be viewed as a declaration of intention in the public law seeking a decision on the payment

In full view of the language and purport of the relevant provision, the legislative purport thereof, and the nature of the claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act can be deemed as having provided for the interruption of prescription separate from the cause of interruption of prescription under the Civil Act. Therefore, on the ground that Article 112(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that “the extinctive prescription under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act shall be governed by the Civil Act, except as otherwise provided for in the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, with respect to the claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the right to receive insurance benefits may not be restricted by construing that Article 174 of the Civil Act, which applies or applies mutatis mutandis to the claim for insurance benefits

Articles 36(2), 112(1)1, and 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Article 174 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Du12091 Decided February 1, 2008

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu77225 decided May 24, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 112(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) provides that, if the right to receive insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not exercised for three years, it shall be extinguished by the extinctive prescription. Article 113 provides that extinctive prescription under Article 112 shall be interrupted by the beneficiary’s claim for insurance benefits under Article 36(2). The legislative purport of the legislative purport of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, while stabilizing the legal relationship relating to industrial accident compensation insurance, shall not be neglected to protect the affected workers who claim their rights in accordance with the method prescribed in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

In addition, even if a person is eligible to receive insurance benefits by falling under the requirements for the payment of insurance benefits provided for in the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, it is not immediately specific right to receive benefits by satisfying such requirements, but a specific right to receive benefits arises only after the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service makes a decision on the insurance benefits upon a beneficiary's claim for insurance benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du12091, Feb. 1, 2008). In this regard, a claim for insurance benefits under Article 36(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act can be viewed as a declaration of public law, seeking a decision on the payment of insurance benefits against the defendant who is an

In full view of the language and purport of the relevant provision, the legislative purport thereof, and the nature of the claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act can be deemed as having provided for the interruption of prescription separate from the cause of interruption of prescription under the Civil Act. Therefore, on the ground that Article 112(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that “the extinctive prescription under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act shall be governed by the Civil Act, except as otherwise provided for in the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, with respect to the claim for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the right to receive insurance benefits may not be restricted by construing that Article 174 of the Civil Act, which applies or applies mutatis mutandis to the claim for insurance benefits

2. In the same purport, the lower court determined that the interruption of prescription based on the initial claim for insurance benefits remains valid, even if the beneficiary did not file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the determination on the site payment within 90 days from the time when the beneficiary filed a claim for insurance benefits with the Defendant, and received the determination on the site payment from the Defendant. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)