If a worker who has suffered from an occupational accident receives a disability compensation annuity under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the scope of the disability compensation annuity payable to him in advance

If a worker who has suffered from an occupational accident receives a disability compensation annuity under Article 42 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he/she shall be deemed to have received the lump-sum disability compensation annuity under Article 42 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the same Act pursuant to Article 48 (2) of the same Act, and shall not deduct the total amount of the disability compensation annuity to be paid in the future only from the amount of damages payable.

Articles 42 and 48 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 Company and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 97Da5061 delivered on December 10, 1998

1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 432,621,463 won and the amount of 5% per annum from July 4, 1996 to April 16, 1999, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes in the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants respectively.

4. The portion of the payment of the money under paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 488,447,029 won and the amount of 5 percent per annum from July 4, 1996 to the date of the decision of the court below, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the claim as to the principal for damages and extended the claim as to damages for delay).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) The following facts can be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if both the Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2-1, 2-2, 6, 7, 8, 2-1, 2-1, and 2-1 of the evidence Nos. 2, and the witness correction statement of the court below, and the non-party No. 1's testimony (excluding the part rejected from the above non-party No. 1's testimony) are all the whole purport of the oral argument, and the part of the non-party No. 1's testimony against this is not believed, and the statement No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2 does not interfere with

(A) On January 26, 1994, Defendant 1 Company (hereinafter “Defendant 1 Company”) concluded a regional unit price contract with regard to “Unauthorized Major Construction Contract (Area 1)” with Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation”) for the term of the contract with regard to “the Unauthorized Major Construction Contract (Area 1)” in 94, which was ordered by Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation, from January 26, 1994 to December 31 of the same year, with the content that the term of the contract shall be from January 26, 1994 to the execution of the works ordered by Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation, and if Defendant 1’s instructions were given, the said construction was performed under the supervision of Defendant Korea Electric Power Company’s work supervisor, and thereafter, the said construction was implemented by extending the term of the contract with Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation every year.

(B) The Plaintiff was employed as a power distribution major in Defendant 1 company around May 18, 1996. At around July 15:00 of the same year, according to Nonparty 1’s order, the work captain of Defendant 1 company, Nonparty 1, the head of the work team of Defendant 1 company, and Nonparty 1, the head of the work team of the company around July 3, 1996, the Plaintiff suffered injury to Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 1, in the course of the operation of the 22,90 V special and high voltage electric wires installed in front of the Guambrogate in order to draw up the cut electric wires under the bottom, while he was engaged in the operation of the electric wires installed in the middle of the 22,90 volts, along with Nonparty 1’s non-party 1, the head of the work team of Defendant 1, the head of the work team of the company.

(C) At that time, the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of cutting off the tampet, which is attached to the tamper vehicle, and Nonparty 1 instructed the Plaintiff and the tamper on the ground to work on the ground. The above accident occurred on the wind of Nonparty 1 ordering the removal work of the said electric wires, which flowed electricity due to mistake in the process of the above work.

(D) At the time of the above contract, Defendant Korea Electric Power appointed Nonparty 3, the representative director of Defendant 1 Company, as the field agent for the above project, and Nonparty 2 as the field agent for the above project. Since the aboveless electric power-driven work was conducted in the state of the flow of special and high voltages of 22,900 V, the above work was conducted within the normal moment, it must be directed by the field supervisor separately from Defendant Korea Electric Power. However, at the time of the instant case, there was no on-site supervisor from Defendant Korea Electric Power, and the above Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 2 did not work at the site.

(2) According to the above facts, the above non-party 1, who is the employee of the defendant 1 company, was negligent in ordering the plaintiff et al. to remove the above electric wires without properly verifying whether the electricity flows into the above electric wires. The above non-party 3 and the non-party 2, who can be regarded as the employee of the defendant Korea Electric Power, were negligent in leaving the above work site without confirming whether the above work is being carried out safely. When allowing the defendant 1 company to carry out dangerous work as above, the defendant 1 company shall dispatch the field supervisor to the above work site to the above non-party 3 and 2, and take measures such as ordering the plaintiff et al. to direct and supervise the above work, etc., in spite of the fact that the above accident was due to the duty of care to prevent the accident, and therefore, the accident of this case shall be jointly and severally liable to the defendant 1's employee, the above non-party 1's negligence of the defendant Korean Electric Power, and the above non-party 3 and the non-party 2.

On the other hand, since Defendant Korea Electric Power agreed to bear all the responsibilities arising from the occurrence of a disaster in relation to the above construction work by Defendant 1 Company, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against Defendant Korea Electric Power is disputedly and thus, according to the statement No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2-2, it is acknowledged that there was an agreement as to the above argument between the Defendants at the time of the above contract, but it cannot be exempted from liability for damages to a third party on the ground that it is an agreement between the Defendants on internal responsibility and that it is an agreement between the Defendants. Thus, the above argument by

B. Limitation on liability

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff, as well as the plaintiff, should be able to recognize the fact that the plaintiff was involved in the accident of this case without properly checking whether the current was cut despite his due care in performing the above work, and without properly checking whether the current was cut. The plaintiff's negligence is also the cause of the occurrence of the damage in this case and the expansion of damages caused thereby. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by 30% in light of the above facts. Thus, the defendants' responsibility is limited to the remaining 70% portion except the above ratio of negligence.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The actual income loss of the Plaintiff lost due to the instant accident shall be KRW 719,153,531 on the basis of the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows: (1) if it is converted into the market price at the time of the instant accident according to the Hofman Calculation Act that deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5 percent per month as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(A) Gender: male and date of birth: September 3, 1968

The age at the time of the instant accident: 27 years of age and 10 months of age, 44.29

(B) Place of residence and occupation: At the time of the instant accident, the person was residing in the Gyeyang-gu, Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, a rural community area at the time of the instant accident, and from May 18, 1996, he was working for Defendant 1 as a commercial power distribution major in the company.

(C) Treatment period: Between June 30, 1997 from the date of the instant accident to June 30, 1997, the Defendant’s hospital annexed to the Defendant’s Korea Electric Power and the Hanyang-gun located in the Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun.

(D) Actual income: At the time of the instant accident, Defendant 1 received the average of KRW 116,363 per day from Defendant 1 Company (as sought by the Plaintiff), and according to the market wage unit price, the wage for power distribution major is KRW 192,602 per day around September 1, 1997.

(E) The number of operating days and maximum working age: Before the date of the instant accident reaches 50 years of age from the date the Plaintiff’s retirement age, Defendant 1 can work in Defendant 1 company and thereafter serve as a major in the distribution of electricity until he reaches the age of 60, which is the maximum working age of power distribution major. In the case of power distribution major, the number of monthly working days is 22 days.

(f)financial assessment of operating capacity;

① From July 3, 1996 to September 2, 2018, KRW 3,539,374 (i.e., KRW 116,363x 365/12, and KRW 365/12 shall be discarded; hereinafter the same shall apply)

② From that date to September 3, 2028, KRW 4,237,244 (=192,602 Won x22)

(g) The rate of residual disability and loss of operation;

Sponsive disability: Full loss of the functions of both sides in the state of cutting on both sides;

Grade I in the disability grade table of beerbrid: 68 pages cut Ⅰ 2, 3

Rate of Loss of Operation: 100% of the date of the instant accident to be hospitalized and operated for the treatment period thereafter 84% / [Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 of Evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 8 of Evidence Nos. 2, 9-1 and 2 of Evidence No. 9, and the result of the lower court’s physical appraisal entrusted to the president of the Jeonnam University Hospital, the result of the fact-finding inquiry conducted by the lower court on the President of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, the purport of the pleading and the empirical rule.

(2) Calculation (the number of days less than the month for each accounting unit shall be counted in the period in which the lost income is less than the period, and the number of days less than the last month shall be discarded; hereinafter

① From July 3, 1996 to June 2, 1997, the date of the instant accident, 11 months.

x 10.734 = 37,989,516 won

(2) From that end, 255 months until September 2, 2018

x 168.0194 = 178.7528 - 10.734) = 499,534,109 won

(3) From that end, 120 months until September 2, 2028

4,237,244 x 84/100 x 51.029 x (=29.7827 - 178.7528) = 181,629,906

(4) Total amount: 719,153,531 won

(b) Remedial treatment expenses;

(1) Necessary treatment and each cost of treatment: sexual traffic is required for both sides of the cutting of the upper half of the upper half, and 3,689,700 won is required for all expenses, including the above operation cost.

(2) Calculation (which means that the plaintiff received the above treatment until the date of the closing of argument in the trial, and there is no assertion or proof as to the payment of the treatment, and the above treatment is conducted 33 months after the date of the present argument in the case, and it shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident).

gold 3,689,700 won X 0.8791 [=1/ (1+0.05x 33/12)] = gold 3,243,615 won

[Evidence] Results of the above physical appraisal commission, the whole purport of the argument

(c) Nursing expenses;

(1) In light of the fact of opening and future opening: the Plaintiff was in a state of cutting down on both sides, and the Plaintiff has taken care of one adult female during a life-sustaining period for food consumption, landing, urine, personal hygiene, etc., and immediately after the instant accident, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the hospital.

(2) Nursing costs: The daily wage is equivalent to 1 adult female workers engaged in daily work in agricultural villages. The daily wage is 26,930 won around July 196, 27,013 won around August 1996, gold 27,081 won around September 1996, gold 27,204 won around October 1, 1996, gold 26,900 won around December 26, 196, 26,90 won around December 26, 197, gold 26,90 won around December 197, 197, 27, 30 won around February 27, 1997, 30 won, gold 26,90 won around July 4, 197, 197, 197, 197, 197, 27, 196, 197, 196, 197.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 and 10-1 and 2, the result of the above physical appraisal commission, the whole purport of the pleading

(3) Calculation (for the convenience of calculation, the interim interest shall be deducted by deeming that the opening cost for the 29th day from July 3, 1996 to July 31 of the same year was paid one month after the accident, and that the opening cost for the corresponding period is paid every one month thereafter).

(1) From July 3, 1996 to July 31, 1996

gold 26,930 wonx 29 daysx 0.958 [ = 1/ (1+0.05x 1/12)] = 777,689 won

(2) 31 days from the following day to August 31, 1996.

gold 27,013 x 31 x 0.917 [=1/ (1+0.05x 2/12)] = 830,452 won

(3) 30 days from the following day to September 30, 1996

gold 27,081 x 30 days x 0.9876 [=1/ (1+0.05x 3/12)] = 802,355 won

(4) 31 days from the following day to October 31, 1996.

gold 27,204 x 31 x 0.9836 [=1/ (1+0.05x 4/12)] = 829,493 won

(5) 30 days from the next day to November 30, 1996

gold 26,900 wonx 30 daysx 0.9795 [=1/ (1+0.05x 5/12)] = gold 790,456 won

(6) 31 days from the next day to December 31, 1996.

gold 26,900 wonx 31 daysx 0.9756 [ = 1/ (1+0.05x 6/12)] = 813,52 won

(7) 31 days from the next day to January 31, 1997.

gold 26,900 wonx 31 daysx 0.9716 [ = 1/ (1+0.05x 7/12)] = 810,217 won

(8) 28 days from the following day to February 28, 1997

gold 27,300 wonx 28 daysx 0.9677 [ = 1/ (1+0.05x 8/12)] = 739,709 won

(9) 31 days from the next day to March 31, 1997.

gold 27,466 wonx 31 daysx 0.9638 [=1/ (1+0.05x 9/12)] = 820,623 won

(10) 30 days from the next day to April 30, 1997.

gold 27,541 x 30 days x 0.9600 [=1/ (1+0.05x 10/12)] = gold 793,180 won

(11) 31 days from the next day to May 31, 1997

gold 27,651 x 31 x 0.9561 [ = 1/ (1+0.05 x 11/12)] = 819,50 won

(12) 30 days from the next day to June 30, 1997

gold 27,717 wonx 30 daysx 0.9523 [=1/ (1+0.05x 12/12)] = gold 791,846 won

(13) 528 months from the date following such date until July 3, 2040

gold 25,547 x 365/12 x 228.3132 = 240 - November 6858) = gold 177,412,595

(14) Total amount: 187,031,717 won

(d) Expenses for auxiliary rescue equipment;

(i)the kinds, names, prices, and required number of necessary auxiliary equipment;

The left-hand side number: 65,00 won per price, 2 years, and 21 persons during the life period.

The number of right-hand books: 445,00 won per price per unit, 2 years of life, 21 of life, / [Evidence] The results of the above physical examination commission, the whole purport of oral pleadings.

(2) Calculation (which is the first purchase after 33 months from the date of the instant accident, and the purchase cost in the future shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident, since there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff paid the above auxiliary devices by the date of the closing of the instant argument).

gold 1,110,00 won + 665,00 won + 445,00 won + 0.8791 + 0.8080 + 0.7476 + 0.6956 + 0.6504 + 0.6504 + 0.575 + 0.5755 + 0.542 + 0.5161 + 0.4907 + 0.468 + 0.469 + 0.468 + 0.420 + 0.390 + 0.3940 + 0.3792 + 0.3652 + 0.3652 + 0.34534.39 + 1945.37.2942 + 194942 +

E. Limitation of liability

(1) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 70% (see the above 1.B.)

(2) Calculation

(1) Daily income: gold 719,153,531 wonx0.7 = gold 503,407,471 won

(2) x0.7 = 141,545,093 won (3,243,615 won + 187,031,717 won + 11,931,945 won) for future medical expenses, nursing expenses, and auxiliary equipment expenses

(f) Mutual aid;

(i)the deduction of temporary layoff benefits, disability benefits, etc.

(A) If Eul evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 22, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 show the whole purport of pleadings as a result of the fact inquiry inquiry report, the plaintiff was paid 29,323,570 won in aggregate of temporary disability compensation benefits until June 30, 197 under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter the Act) after the accident of this case, and thereafter received the second grade disability rating prescribed in the above Act, and around August 18, 1997 under the proviso of Article 42(3) of the above Act, the plaintiff was paid 135,540,030 won in aggregate as disability compensation annuity for the first four years (from July 1997 to June 201), and the fact that the plaintiff's average wage was paid 39,800,000 won in aggregate from defendant 1's average wage, and the fact that the plaintiff's final ground for the payment of the above amount No. 13630,1636.

(B) The parties' assertion and determination on the deduction of disability benefits

The Defendants asserted that, in addition to the advance payment of the above disability compensation annuity, the Plaintiff may receive the disability compensation annuity under the above Act from July 2001 to the time of death, the said advance payment and the Plaintiff should deduct the amount equivalent to the total amount of the disability compensation annuity to be paid during the life period (40 years) from July 2001, and that the Plaintiff should deduct only the amount equivalent to the lump sum of the disability compensation annuity, pursuant to the provisions of Article 48(2) of the above Act.

Therefore, Article 42 (1) of the above Act provides that disability benefits shall be disability compensation annuities or lump-sum disability compensation annuities under Table 1 according to the disability grade, and the disability grade shall be set by the Presidential Decree. According to the above attached Table 1, disability grade shall be divided into Grades 1 through 14, and the disability compensation annuity or lump-sum disability compensation benefits under paragraph (1) shall be paid at the option of the beneficiary: Provided, That the disability compensation annuity or lump-sum disability compensation benefits under paragraph (1) shall be paid to workers who have lost their work ability as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 31 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") provides that the above disability grade shall be determined by the above Article 42 (2) of the Act, which provides that the above disability grade shall be determined by the Presidential Decree, and that if the above disability grade is determined by the above Article 48 (2) of the above Act, it shall be interpreted that the above disability grade shall not be paid within the limit of the disability compensation annuity or other insurance benefits under this Act.

(c)Calculation;

Therefore, the passive damage suffered by the above plaintiff due to the accident in this case is KRW 503,407,471 of the above recognition, which is KRW 29,323,570 of the above recognition, KRW 152,319,91 of the lump-sum disability compensation ( KRW 116,363.63 x 1,309) and KRW 281,963,910 of the above amount paid by the defendant 1 company (= KRW 503,407,471 - KRW 29,323,570 -152,319,91 - 39,80,000 of the above amount paid by the defendant 1 company (= KRW 503,407,471 - KRW 29,323,570 of the above recognition).

(2) Deduction of nursing fees

(A) The above evidence reveals that the Plaintiff received KRW 5,887,540 from the accident of this case to June 30, 1997 pursuant to the above law after the accident of this case.

(b)Calculation;

Amounting to KRW 141,545,093 in total of future medical expenses, nursing expenses, and auxiliary equipment expenses - gold KRW 5,887,540 = gold KRW 135,657,553

(g) Consolation money;

(i)The reasons for consideration;

The plaintiff's age, family relation, living level, background and result of the occurrence of the accident of this case, degree of negligence on the plaintiff's side, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(b) Amount determined: 15,000,000 won

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff about 432,621,463 won (281,963,910 won in daily income + KRW 135,657,553 in total for future medical expenses, nursing expenses, and auxiliary equipment + KRW 15,000 in consolation money + 15,000 in accordance with the plaintiff's claim, the following day of the accident of this case is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendants' obligation to pay damages from July 4, 1996 until April 16, 1999, which is the date of this decision, the five percent per annum under the Civil Act, and twenty five percent per annum per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date after the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be cited, and the decision of the court below against the defendants shall be dismissed, and the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

April 16, 1999

Judges Macheon-ho (Presiding Judge)