Requirements for a beneficiary under Article 9-7 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act to claim special benefits to an insurer in lieu of a claim for damages under the Civil Act.

If a beneficiary prescribed in Article 9-7 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act intends to claim special survivors' benefits from Korea, which is an insurer in lieu of a claim for damages under the Civil Act, it should not be found that at least the beneficiary has received damages under the Civil Act.

Plaintiff 1 and 35 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. 2 Stock Companies, Victoria Hotel, Attorneys Lee Dong-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1273 delivered on January 17, 1975

The part of the judgment below that dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal (the part against the plaintiffs) shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) The plaintiff's attorney first examines the grounds of appeal against the defendant bictoria hotel corporation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since insurance money under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act of the employees who died during the performance of their duties due to the fire of an annual hotel which is a telegraph of the defendant company (excluding the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2) is the beneficiary, the court below delegated the defendant company with the authority to receive funeral expenses for 90 days of average wages of each deceased employee who is entitled to receive benefits from the State (Labor Office) under the above Insurance Act, and the compensation for survivors for 50 days' lump sum payment was received from the State, and the above company did not pay funeral expenses for 90 days and compensation for bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's bereaved family's compensation payment to 300,000 won.

The above determination by the court below is with the purport that the plaintiffs included the funeral expenses equivalent to the average wage of 90 days that the plaintiffs can receive from the State, and the amount of lump-sum lump-sum lump-sum payment corresponding to the amount of 100 days, so the plaintiffs entrusted the right to receive the insurance money to the defendant company that paid the insurance money to the defendant company that paid the above substitute payment by the defendant company. Therefore, although the insurance money that the defendant company received from the State due to this delegation was appropriated for the above substitute payment by the defendant company, the defendant company did not have the nature to pay it to the plaintiffs, it paid it again as the funeral expenses of 90 days received from the State and the lump-sum payment of 50 days to the plaintiffs as the beneficiary, the defendant company did not have the right to claim a lump-sum payment to the defendant company, regardless of whether the defendant company received the remaining 50 days's lump-sum payment from the State.

However, as acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiffs paid the above 1.5 million won from the defendant company to the defendant company, including the amount corresponding to the above insurance money paid by the government, and it is deemed that the defendant company paid the above insurance money in person, the plaintiff 24 among the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 5 in China who received a total of 5.5 million won from the defendant company, is the average wage of 1,429.54 won, and the plaintiff 36 is the average wage of 1,480.61 won, which is 1.5 million won, and the lump sum payment for the funeral expenses and lump sum payment for the above 1,500 won, more than the above 1.5 million won, which he received from the defendant company as the defendant company, are below the insurance money. In addition, the court below determined that the defendant company's claim against the defendant Korea of this case was made in the claim against the defendant company of this case, in light of Article 9-7 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the defendant company's claim against the defendant company was in a position equivalent to the average wage for 1 million.

Of the above plaintiffs, even if they did not receive damages under the Civil Act from the defendant company, if only the procedures prescribed under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are followed, the sum of funeral expenses, lump-sum survivors' compensation and special survivors' compensation benefits which the above plaintiffs would naturally be paid by the State. It is much more than 1.5 million won that the above plaintiffs were paid from the defendant company as compensation for damages, etc. It is recognized that the fire in this case occurred due to the gross negligence of the defendant company, which is the insured, and the State decided to collect the amount equivalent to 50 percent of the lump-sum survivors' compensation amount paid to the defendant company from the defendant company by applying Article 26-2 (1) (3) of the above Insurance Act. In this case, there is no special circumstance that all the plaintiffs should bear the above charges against the defendant company in lump sum from their own share. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs were paid from the defendant company's 1500,000 won or 1500,000,0000 won of the above insurance money received from the defendant company.

Therefore, without examining the above special circumstances that the above plaintiffs should not conclude a contract disadvantageous to them by themselves, the above agreement and each letter are written only with the victim other than the plaintiffs, and funeral expenses for 90 days and lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits for 1,500 days paid uniformly by the defendant company to the plaintiffs with the thickness of 1,50,000 won, which are paid by the defendant company to the victims other than the plaintiffs, were all included in the above amount, regardless of the difference in the amount. The defendant company recognized that the defendant company paid it by delay without any evidence, or if not, it was found that the facts were recognized without evidence, and did not err in the determination of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, without determining the remaining grounds of appeal, the appeal on this point is justified.

(2) The above grounds of appeal are examined as to Defendant Republic of Korea.

According to Article 9-7 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, "if a worker dies due to an intentional or gross negligence of the insured, the beneficiary may pay an amount equivalent to the average wage for 100 days, in addition to the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits, if the beneficiary claims the special survivors' benefits in lieu of a claim for damages under the Civil Act." Thus, in order for the insured to claim the above special survivors' benefits against the defendant who is the insurer, the beneficiary (excluding Plaintiffs 15 and 20; hereinafter the same shall apply), the insured and the business owner should at least not have received the damages under the Civil Act from the defendant company. However, in this case, the court below duly determines the fact that the above plaintiffs received 1.5 million won from the defendant company (the plaintiff 50,500,000 won received). Therefore, it is inevitable to determine whether or not the plaintiffs can claim the special survivors' benefits from the State.

Therefore, in the plaintiffs' claims against Pictoria hotel Co., Ltd., the above 1.5 million won has not yet become final and conclusive, it seems that the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea may also affect the defendant's claims based on its conclusion. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be reasonable and reasonable.

(3) For the foregoing reasons, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the plaintiffs' claim by dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)