Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hee, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

July 24, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition on February 14, 2014 against the Plaintiff to pay the site for pneumoconiosis consolation benefits is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 15, 1991 to May 24, 1992, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as pneumoconiosis on July 12, 201 after having retired from ○○ Mining Center, and was judged to be 1/0 type of pneumoconiosis and 63 (high disability) as a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis on March 29, 201, and was under medical care in △△ Hospital, etc. from July 13, 2010.

B. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of pneumoconiosis accident compensation benefits pursuant to Articles 24(1)2 and 25(2) and attached Table 2 of the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Pneumoconiosis Workers (hereinafter “ Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act”).

C. However, on February 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “A person subject to the first ground for payment of pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis Workers (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010),” and “a person subject to the first ground for payment of pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis Workers (amended by Act No. 10304),” namely, “a person for whom the first ground for payment of pneumoconiosis was confirmed after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis Workers,” namely, “a person for whom the date of issuance of a medical certificate of diagnosis or medical opinion of pneumoconiosis was after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis Workers, which was before November 21, 2010.”

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on March 18, 2014. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the administrative appeal on October 21, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 24(3) of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act, pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits refer to a person whose pneumoconiosis grade is determined after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) is to be paid to an employee whose pneumoconiosis grade is determined pursuant to Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Compensation Act”). According to Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “the Addenda of this case”), pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits refer to a person who first causes for payment of pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act, and thus, “the person who first causes for payment of pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act” refers to “the person whose pneumoconiosis grade was determined for the first time after the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act.” Thus, the Plaintiff becomes subject to pneumoconiosis disability grade after the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act was determined as the subject of medical care on September 17

B. Determination

(1) Article 2 of the Addenda of the instant case provides that “The amended provisions of Articles 24 and 25 shall apply to a person who first causes for payment of pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits after this Act enters into force,” and Article 24(2) of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act provides that “Any pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits shall be paid to a worker whose pneumoconiosis grade is determined pursuant to the pneumoconiosis grade determination under Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “harm grade”).” Thus, there is room to interpret “reasons for payment” under Article 2 of the Addenda of the instant case as a decision of pneumoconiosis grade pursuant to the pneumoconiosis grade determination under Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act. However, Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act provides that Article 24(2) of the Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act and its enforcement date may not arise before November 21, 2010, and Article 24(2) of the Addenda of the instant case provides for “the first cause for the payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits after this Act enters into force,” and Article 2 of the instant Addenda of the Pneumoconiosis.

If it is determined whether a person who was diagnosed for pneumoconiosis at the same time is eligible for pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits on the basis of the date on which the actual pneumoconiosis grade is determined as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the payment of pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits may vary depending on when the Defendant determines the pneumoconiosis grade, and such assertion is difficult to accept.

D. As to the instant case, the Plaintiff received the first diagnosis of pneumoconiosis on July 12, 2010, it is reasonable to view that it is not subject to pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the instant case, but subject to disability consolation benefits under Article 24(1)2 of the former Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010).

Article 22(1) of the Civil Code provides that the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-dong