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

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

July 22, 2016

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan50354 decided December 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On February 14, 2014, the defendant revoked the disposition of compensation for pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits rendered against the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s judgment concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: (a) the third to fourth to fourth to the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) such reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“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 the payment of pneumoconiosis injury consolation benefits after this Act enters into force.” Article 24(3) 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 based on the determination of pneumoconiosis under Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.” Thus, there is no room to interpret “reasons for payment” under Article 2 of the Addenda of the instant case as “determination of pneumoconiosis disability grade”.

However, in light of the following purport and contents of Article 24 of the Act on the Protection of Pneumoconiosis Workers, Article 91-8 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, Article 83-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Enforcement Decree, it is reasonable to view that “reasons for payment” under Article 2 of the Addenda of this case refers to “issuance of a medical certificate or opinion” which serves as a ground for determining a pneumoconiosis disability grade according to the pneumoconiosis determination under Article 9

① Article 24(3) of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act provides that “A worker whose pneumoconiosis grade is determined shall be paid” without providing that “A worker whose pneumoconiosis grade is determined.” Therefore, if a pneumoconiosis grade is determined after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Workers from Pneumoconiosis (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010; Newly establishing a special provision for insurance benefits under Chapter III pneumoconiosis), it is difficult to interpret that the worker is entitled to receive pneumoconiosis benefits under the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act regardless of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010; Newly establishing a special provision for insurance benefits under pneumoconiosis 2).

② Article 91-8(1) of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended from November 21, 2010, as well as Article 24(3) of the Pneumoconiosis Protection Act) provides that “The Service shall, upon receipt of diagnosis results pursuant to Article 91-6, determine the type of pneumoconiosis of the relevant worker, whether there exists a merger certificate, and the degree of cardiopulmonary function, etc. In such cases, necessary criteria for determination of pneumoconiosis shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Furthermore, Article 83-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that “The first determination of pneumoconiosis grade of the worker newly established pursuant to delegation of Article 91-8(1) and (2) of the same Act shall be construed as “the first determination of pneumoconiosis grade necessary for the determination of pneumoconiosis and the payment of insurance benefits to pneumoconiosis workers under Article 91-8(3) of the Act, standards for determination of cardiopulmonary function, disability grade and merger thereof, etc.” Article 91-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Pneumoconiosis Insurance Act provides that “the first determination of the Pneumoconiosis Insurance Act shall be issued pursuant to Article 1313 of the Enforcement Decree.”

2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff received the first diagnosis of pneumoconiosis on July 12, 2010 prior to the enforcement of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff can be eligible for disability consolation benefits under Article 24(1)2 of the former Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010) instead of being eligible for pneumoconiosis consolation benefits under Article 24(1)2 of the amended Pneumoconiosis Workers Protection Act.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition taken on such premise is lawful.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Heung-ung (Presiding Justice)