Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

October 29, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap48247 decided May 30, 2008

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting KRW 266,605,680 against the Plaintiffs on February 12, 2007 is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Nonparty 1 leased the name of ○○ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction Co., Ltd.”). Nonparty 1 directly performed the construction of the instant building in the Dong-si located in the Dong-gu government city ordered by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “instant construction”). Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “the network”) entered into a contract with Nonparty 3 on the part of the instant construction, which was part of the instant construction, and had Nonparty 1 perform the relevant construction work.

B. On August 12, 2004, the Deceased died after being reduced to a high-tension line among the Dos engaged in dismantling the outer steel structure at the site of the instant construction work.

C. On August 23, 2004, the Plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, claimed compensation and funeral expenses under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) on the premise that the deceased is an employee belonging to the non-party company, who is the contractor of the instant construction. The Defendant recognized the deceased’s death as an occupational accident, and determined to pay the deceased’s survivors’ compensation amounting to KRW 123,370,00, funeral expenses, and KRW 133,302,840,000 (hereinafter “instant decision on payment”), and paid the said insurance benefits to the Plaintiffs on September 24, 2004.

D. However, on January 16, 2007, the Defendant rendered an internal decision to collect KRW 26,605,680, an amount equivalent to KRW 133,302,840, the insurance benefits already paid to the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 53(1)1 of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, on the ground that “the deceased is only a person who was awarded a contract for the steel work, etc. during the instant construction work, and is not a worker of the non-party company, but received the insurance benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means.” On February 12, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to that effect.

E. The notice of payment or demand for the instant disposition was sent to the Plaintiffs after November 15, 2007, while the notice of payment or demand for the instant disposition was returned twice.

【Unsatisfy-based dispute on the ground of recognition】Unsatisfy-based dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Deceased did not receive a contract for the steel work among the instant construction works, and is a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor and received remuneration in return for the provision of labor under the direction and supervision of Nonparty 1. In addition, the Plaintiffs did not know that the Deceased was treated as an employee of the non-party company, since the Deceased did not receive the insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means.

B. The right to collect unjust enrichment of this case has expired since November 15, 2007, since the three-year statute of limitations, counting from September 24, 2004, when the Defendant paid the insurance benefits, even though the Plaintiffs were deemed to have received the insurance benefits by falsity or other unlawful means, and the Defendant had the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case”).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Nonparty 1 obtained the construction permit of the instant construction from Nonparty 2 and the contractor as the non-party company, and purchased the industrial accident compensation insurance in the name of the non-party company, and paid the insurance premium on its own account.

B. On March 10, 2004, Nonparty 1 entered into a contract with the Deceased on the construction work part of the instant construction work between the Deceased and the Deceased for a period of ten years prior to the completion of the construction work. According to the contract, construction cost shall be paid up to 2/3 each time according to the degree of the construction work, and if there is no particular defect after the completion of the construction work, the remainder shall be paid to the Deceased, and all relevant liabilities shall be assumed by the Deceased.

Non-party 1 contacted the Deceased when it is necessary to perform works, such as steel bars, according to the progress of the instant construction, and accordingly, the Deceased arrives at the designated date and time and at the site of the instant construction, and Nonparty 1 used materials prepared by Nonparty 1 to perform works, such as steel bars.

Applicant Nonparty 1, after examining whether the work performed by the Deceased was properly conducted at the construction site of this case, prepared work logs on the number of figures and skilled crafts performed by the Deceased. Based on this, on May 10, 2004, Nonparty 1 paid KRW 10,000,000 per day for the Deceased [referring to technicians (referring to technicians) from April 14, 2004 to May 15, 2004, KRW 110,000 per day, and KRW 660,000, and the balance of KRW 660,000, and KRW 100,000 per day for each of the commodities under the pretext of 0,000, KRW 13,000 for June 16, 2004, KRW 00 for each of the commodities paid to the Deceased.

(v) Nonparty 2, etc., on August 2004, immediately after the death of the deceased, under the investigation conducted by the Speaker’s police station regarding the process of the incident involving the death of the deceased, and stated to the effect that the deceased was not a worker but a contractor of the steel work. Plaintiff 2 was engaged in the construction work since around 15 years before the deceased’s death and was engaged in a specialized subcontract with the owner of the building and engaged in the steel work.

⑹ 원고 1 등은 2004년 8월 말경 피고 산하 의정부 지사를 방문하여 망인의 사망에 관한 재해발생신고를 하고 그 직원으로부터 구체적인 산재보험금 청구절차에 관한 설명을 들은 다음 2004. 9. 21. 유족보상·장의비 청구서를 피고에게 제출하였고, 그 소명자료로서 망인과 소외 회사 사이의 근로계약서, 작업일보, 노무비지급명세서, 손해배상합의서 등을 제출하였다{망인은 소외 1과 사이에 위 ⑵항에서 본 내용의 계약을 체결하였기 때문에 소명자료로 제출된 위 근로계약서는 사실과 다른 허위의 것이다.}.

⑺ 한편, 피고 산하 의정부 지사 보상부 직원은 이 사건 지급결정을 하기에 앞서 2004. 9. 7. 소외 회사의 인사·노무관리자라고 주장하는 소외 4에 대한 조사를 하였는데, 당시 소외 4는 이 사건 공사에 대한 설계 및 감리를 맡은 사람이지 소외 회사의 직원이 아닐 뿐만 아니라 망인이 소외 1로부터 철근공사를 의뢰받은 속칭 ‘오야지’라는 사실을 알고 있었으면서도, 원고들로부터 망인의 사망과 관련한 산재보험금 청구 업무를 위임받은 노무사의 부탁에 따라 “나는 소외 회사의 인사·노무관리자인데, 망인은 소외 회사에 2004. 4. 12. 입사하여 소외 회사의 철근 및 콘크리트 비계팀장으로서 일당 130,000원을 받고 일한 근로자이다.”라는 취지로 허위진술을 하였고, 그와 같은 내용의 확인서를 작성하였다.

The defendant made the decision of this case on the basis of the above findings and the written confirmation of the non-party 4, the written employment contract between the non-party company whose employee is the deceased and the non-party company whose employee is the non-party company, and the written statement of daily labor cost payment between the deceased.

⑻ 의정부지방노동사무소는 2004. 10. 6.경 피고로부터 이 사건 지급결정을 통보받은 뒤 망인의 사망과 관련한 산업안전보건법위반의 혐의에 관하여 수사를 진행하였는데, 소외 1은 “2004. 12. 15.경 망인과 하도급계약을 체결하였고 망인이 상시근로자 3명을 고용하여 작업을 수행하던 중 사고가 발생하였다.”는 취지로 진술하면서 망인과 체결하였다는 하도급계약서 및 망인 작성의 영수증을 제출하였고, 망인에게 고용되었다는 소외 5 역시 전화통화 등을 통하여 같은 취지의 진술을 하였다.

⑼ 피고는 노동부로부터 망인의 사망과 관련하여 망인이 근로기준법상 근로자가 아니라는 통보를 받고 2006년 11월경 그에 관한 조사에 착수하여 이 사건 지급결정은 소외 4의 허위 진술 등에 근거한 것으로 망인을 근로자로 볼 수 없다는 이유로 이 사건 처분을 하면서 원고들 및 소외 4를 수사기관에 수사를 의뢰하였다.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】: Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 7 through 9, Eul's evidence 1 through 4 (including evidence with a serial number), non-party 1's witness of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to whether the plaintiffs received the insurance benefits by false or other unlawful means

㈎ 먼저 망인이 근로자의 지위에 있었는지에 관하여 보건대, 근로기준법상의 근로자에 해당하는지 여부는 계약의 형식이 고용계약인지 도급계약인지보다 그 실질에 있어 근로자가 사업 또는 사업장에 임금을 목적으로 종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 하고, 여기서 말하는 종속적인 관계가 있는지 여부는 업무 내용을 사용자가 정하고 취업규칙 또는 복무규정, 인사규정 등의 적용을 받으며 업무 수행 과정에서 사용자가 상당한 지휘·감독을 하는지, 사용자가 근무시간과 근무장소를 지정하고 근로자가 이에 구속을 받는지, 노무제공자가 스스로 비품·원자재나 작업도구 등을 소유하거나 제3자를 고용하여 업무를 대행하게 하는 등 독립하여 자신의 계산으로 사업을 영위할 수 있는지, 노무제공을 통한 이윤의 창출과 손실의 초래 등 위험을 스스로 안고 있는지, 보수의 성격이 근로 자체의 대상적 성격인지, 기본급이나 고정급이 정하여졌는지 및 근로소득세의 원천징수 여부 등 보수에 관한 사항, 근로 제공 관계의 계속성과 사용자에 대한 전속성의 유무와 그 정도, 사회보장제도에 관한 법령에서 근로자로서 지위를 인정받는지 등의 경제적·사회적 여러 조건을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다( 대법원 2007. 3. 29. 선고 2005두13018, 13025 판결 참조).

In light of the health stand, the relationship between the deceased and the non-party 1, the motive and background leading up to the industrial accident insurance under the name of the non-party company, the relationship between the deceased and the deceased, the contents of the contract concluded between the non-party 1 and the deceased, the payment method, the relationship between the deceased and his father, the relationship between the deceased and his father, the procedure of the change of the incident and the investigation into the government labor office, the statement of the relevant persons in the investigation into the case, and the non-party 1, even if the non-party 1 prepared a work log at the site, it is merely a room to settle the price later, and only the contract between the deceased and the non-party 1 is the content of the contract for the payment of the price, and there is no separate reference as to material cost, it cannot be viewed that the deceased and the non-party 1 were in a considerable command and supervision relationship between the deceased and the non-party 1, or the worker was in a position of providing labor

㈏ 다음으로, 원고들이 허위 기타 부정한 방법으로 보험급여를 받았는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 보험급여를 받은 자가 주관적으로 허위 기타 부정한 방법임을 인식하면서 적극적으로 받을 수 없는 보험급여를 받은 경우에는 피고 공단은 그 급여액의 2배에 해당하는 금액을 징수하여야 하는바( 구 산재보험법 제53조 제1항 제1호 및 대법원 2008. 2. 14. 선고 2006두9696 판결 참조), 이는 피고 공단의 부당이득 징수가 산업재해보상보험급여의 절차적 특성상 피고가 재해 등을 정확히 밝혀내기 어렵다는 사정을 악용하여 허위 기타 부정한 방법으로 보험급여를 받은 근로자에게 이미 지급한 보험급여액의 배액을 징수하는 제재를 가함으로써 산재업무의 공정성을 확보하기 위한 규정이라 할 것이다.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., the circumstance leading up to the decision of the payment of this case, the circumstance leading up to the plaintiffs' submission of false documents in the process of receiving the decision of the payment of this case, and the statements of related persons in the process of handling the case, etc., the plaintiffs can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiffs were aware that they were not the workers of the non-party company in the process of determining the payment of this case, but they were concealed, and that they received the insurance benefits. Thus, the plaintiffs were actively receiving the insurance benefits by recognizing that

㈐ 따라서, 망인이 근로기준법상의 근로자에 해당하지 아니한다거나 원고들이 허위 기타 부정한 방법으로 보험급여를 지급받은 것이 아니라는 취지의 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

D. As to whether the extinctive prescription of the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case has expired

㈎ 구 산재보험법 제53조 제3항 에 의하여 준용되는 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률 제41조 제1항 에 의하면, 이 사건 부당이득징수권의 소멸시효기간은 3년임을 알 수 있고, 한편, 민법 제166조 제1항 에 의하면 소멸시효는 ‘권리를 행사할 수 있는 때’로부터 진행하게 된다.

However, as to the starting date of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case, the defendant asserted that the starting date of the extinctive prescription should be September 24, 2004 where the defendant paid the insurance benefits. After the payment of the above insurance benefits, the defendant newly revealed the facts that the plaintiffs received the insurance benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means, and accordingly, the defendant could not exercise the right to collect unjust enrichment of this case until January 16, 2007, which was decided internally by the defendant to collect the amount equivalent to twice the insurance benefits from the plaintiffs. Thus, the above date should be deemed the starting

㈏ 살피건대, 소멸시효는 객관적으로 권리가 발생하여 그 권리를 행사할 수 있는 때로부터 진행하고 그 권리를 행사할 수 없는 동안은 진행하지 않는 것으로서, ‘권리를 행사할 수 없는’ 경우라 함은 그 권리행사에 법률상의 장애사유, 예컨대 기간의 미도래나 조건불성취 등이 있는 경우를 말하는 것이고, 사실상 권리의 존재나 권리행사 가능성을 알지 못하였고 알지 못함에 과실이 없다고 하여도 이러한 사유는 법률상 장애사유에 해당하지 않는다고 할 것인바( 대법원 2004. 4. 27. 선고 2003두10763 판결 참조), 그렇다면, 피고가 이 사건 부당이득징수권을 가지고 있음을 알고 있었는지 여부에 관계 없이 피고가 원고들에게 지급하지 아니하여야 할 보험급여를 지급함으로써 부당이득징수권을 행사할 수 있는 요건이 충족된 2004. 9. 24.부터 이 사건 부당이득징수권의 소멸시효가 진행한다고 할 것이고, 피고가 위 날부터 3년의 소멸시효기간인 2007. 9. 24.까지 소멸시효 중단사유가 있었다는 점에 관하여 아무런 주장, 입증을 하지 못하고 있으므로, 결국 이 사건 부당이득징수권은 소멸시효가 완성되어 이미 소멸하였다.

㈐ 그렇다면, 이 사건 부당이득징수권을 근거로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하여 취소되어야 할 것이므로, 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 있다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)