[1] The legal nature of the disaster compensation benefits under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act and whether the amount additionally received according to the determination of disability grade after the completion of additional medical care is included in the lump-sum disability compensation benefits (affirmative)

[2] Whether the right to claim for disaster compensation under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act can be waived by agreement between the parties (negative)

[1] Disaster compensation benefits under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act include not only the amount received in accordance with the disability grade after the completion of the first medical care but also the amount additionally received in accordance with the additional medical care after the completion of the medical care, in a case where the worker suffering from a disaster was determined by the disability grade after the completion of the first medical care and the additional medical care was received after the result of a recurrence of the first medical care or a merger, and the additional medical care was received after the result of the additional medical care. In a case where the lump sum compensation benefits, which is the basis for the payment of disaster compensation benefits, are considered to include not only the amount received in accordance with the determination of the disability grade after the completion of the first medical care, but also the amount additionally received in accordance with the additional medical care after the completion of the medical care.

[2] The right to claim disaster compensation benefits under Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act is an individual's public right and cannot be waived in advance by agreement of the parties in light of the public interest nature.

[1] Article 39-2 (1) and Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act, Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act / [2] Article 39-2 (1), Article 39-3 (1) 4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act, Article 41 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13209 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3105), Supreme Court Decision 95Da28960 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1997) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu455 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3415), Supreme Court Decision 98Du8919 delivered on August 21, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2328)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Coal Industry Rationalization Business Association (Attorney Lee Ho-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu13486 delivered on January 28, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding the scope of payment of disaster consolation benefits

According to the provisions of Articles 39-2(1) and 39-3(1)4 and (4) of the Coal Industry Act and Article 41(4)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, one of the costs of mine closure paid to retired workers, coal mining workers, coal mining business operators, etc. who fall under a certain standard, the Defendant is obliged to pay disaster compensation benefits to those whose disability grade has not been determined as of the date of closure of a mine or those whose disability grade has not been determined as of the date of closure of a mine or those whose disability grade has not been determined as of the date of a disaster, regardless of the period of a disaster. Such disaster compensation benefits include the same amount as the lump-sum disability compensation benefits under Article 42(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act or the lump-sum disability compensation benefits under Article 43(1) of the same Act, continuing to receive additional medical care benefits in consideration of the domestic coal supply and demand situation, and thus, the Defendant is also obligated to receive additional additional medical care benefits after being determined as inappropriate for the balanced development of the national economy.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the defendant is liable to pay disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits received in addition to the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits received in accordance with the grade of disability determined after closing the first medical treatment and closing the second medical treatment after obtaining approval from all the local offices of the Ministry of Labor, and then closing the second medical treatment, and it is just in the judgment of the court below that the defendant is liable to pay disaster compensation benefits equivalent to the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits received in addition to the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. As to the validity of the waiver note

In light of the above legal nature of disaster consolation benefits, the right to claim disaster consolation benefits is an individual's public right and cannot be waived in advance by agreement of the parties in light of the public interest nature, and the decision of the court below which rejected the defendant's assertion in the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal nature of disaster consolation benefits and the validity of each letter as alleged in the ground of

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)