Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

October 14, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on April 4, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 1996 to March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff retired while serving in ○○○○, a noise business place (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. On April 8, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “Indeption and Lee (hereinafter “Indeption”) at the △△ University Hospital and claimed disability benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant on April 13, 2010.

C. On October 21, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition of disability benefit site payment on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under the criteria for recognition of noise in distress and falls under class 7 of disability grade 10, but the extinctive prescription of the right to claim disability benefits has expired three years after the retirement of the instant company from March 2005.

D. On June 4, 2013, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for disability benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a site payment disposition on the ground that extinctive prescription expired on June 24, 2013.

E. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a site payment disposition against the Plaintiff on April 4, 2016 on the ground that extinctive prescription has expired (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The extinctive prescription of a right to claim disability benefits against the injury or disease of this case is calculated from October 21, 2010 where a disability grade decision was rendered or from April 8, 2010, which is the diagnosis date of the injury or disease of this case. The Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on April 13, 2010 and June 4, 2013, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. As such, the extinctive prescription was suspended pursuant to Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of additional payment of disability benefits from the Defendant on June 24, 2013, and the Defendant filed a claim for disability benefits before three years lapse from that time, and thus, was unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes;

【Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Article 112 (Prescription)

(1) The following rights shall be extinguished by prescription, unless exercised within three years:

1. Entitlement to receive insurance benefits under Article 36 (1);

(2) The Civil Act shall apply to the extinctive prescription under paragraph (1), except as otherwise provided for in this Act.

Article 13 (Interruption of Prescription)

Extinctive prescription under Article 112 shall be interrupted by a request made pursuant to Article 36 (2). In such cases, where the request is the first request requiring a judgment on whether the case concerns an occupational accident under subparagraph 1 of Article 5, the interruption of prescription resulting from the request shall also affect the other insurance benefits provided for in Article 36 (1).

Article 36 (Types of Insurance Benefits, Standards for Calculation, etc.)

(1) The types of insurance benefits shall be as follows: Provided, That the types of insurance benefits for pneumoconiosis shall be medical care benefits under subparagraph 1, nursing benefits under subparagraph 4, funeral expenses under subparagraph 7, vocational rehabilitation benefits under subparagraph 8, pneumoconiosis compensation annuities under Article 91-3, and pneumoconiosis survivors' annuity under Article 91-4:

3. Disability benefits:

(2) The insurance benefits referred to in paragraph (1) shall be paid at the request of a person entitled to insurance benefits under Articles 40, 52 through 57, 60 through 62, 66 through 69, 71, 72, 91-3, and 91-4 (hereinafter referred to as "beneficiary").

Article 57 (Disability Benefits)

(1) Disability benefits shall be paid to any worker who suffers from a physical disability, etc. after recovering from any injury or disease caused by reason of his/her duties.

【Civil Code

Article 166 (Starting Point of Computing Extinctive Prescription)

(1) Extinctive prescription shall run when rights can be exercised.

Article 178 (Running of Prescription after Interruption)

(1) When a prescription has been interrupted, the period of prescription which has lapsed until such interruption shall not be included, but shall newly run when the cause of interruption ceases to exist.

(2) The prescription suspended due to a judicial claim shall begin to run anew from the time the judgment is finally binding in accordance with the preceding paragraph.

Article 174 (Peremptory Notice and Interruption of Prescription)

A peremptory notice shall have no effect of interrupting prescription unless a demand by judicial proceedings, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, a summons for compromise or a voluntary appearance for the same purpose, an attachment, a provisional attachment or a provisional disposition is taken within six months.

C. Determination

1) The starting point for the statute of limitations

According to Article 112(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits expires unless it is exercised for three years. According to Article 166 of the Civil Act applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 112(2) of the same Act, extinctive prescription proceeds from the time when it is possible to exercise its right. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits runs from the time when

The extinctive prescription of the right to receive disability benefits in this case shall be calculated from the time when it was confirmed that the effect of the treatment cannot be expected with respect to the cardiopathic fertility (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374, Sept. 4, 2014). Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits is calculated from April 8, 2010, when it was confirmed that the Plaintiff had symptoms of the disease in this case at the △△ University Hospital, and there was no way to cure the deterioration without being treated with noise, and there was no way to cure the current medical level. Therefore, the period of extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits is calculated from April 8, 2010.

2) Whether to interrupt extinctive prescription

Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides, “The extinctive prescription under Article 112 of the same Act shall be interrupted by a request under Article 36(2) of the same Act.” In addition, Article 178(1) of the Civil Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 112(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, provides, “When the prescription has been interrupted, the period of prescription which has lapsed until the interruption shall not be included therein, but shall newly run from the time when the cause of suspension ceases

As seen earlier, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim for disability benefits is in progress from April 8, 2010, but the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was interrupted on April 13, 2010, and the ground for interruption of the said claim for disability benefits ceases to exist on October 21, 2010. Moreover, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim for disability benefits is going to run anew from October 21, 2010, which was before the expiration of the said three-year statute of limitations, while the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits again on June 4, 2013, which was before the said three-year statute of limitations expires, and the extinctive prescription of the instant claim for disability benefits will resume again in accordance with the site wage disposition on June 24, 2013. Since the Plaintiff again filed a claim on October 19, 2015, which was before the said three-year statute of limitations expires on June 24, 2013, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim for disability benefits did not expire.

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the effect that the claim under Article 36(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act constitutes a peremptory notice under Article 174 of the Civil Act, and that the interruption of prescription is not effective pursuant to Article 174 of the Civil Act unless the defendant files a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the disability benefit payment disposition within 90 days from the time of receiving the site benefit payment

On the other hand, Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that the extinctive prescription period of a claim for insurance benefits shall be interrupted by a claim for insurance benefits, and does not require a judicial claim within six months to maintain the interruption of prescription. ② Insurance benefit claims against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, which is an administrative agency, differs from the highest time and character between individuals, and the limitation of the 90-day period under the Administrative Litigation Act may not apply mutatis mutandis to such judicial claim. ③ If disability benefit claims are merely the highest time under Article 174 of the Civil Act, as alleged by the Defendant, and a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a disposition for payment for disability benefits falls under a judicial claim under Article 170 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the disposition for payment for disability benefits within six months from the time of filing the claim for interruption of prescription. Considering that there is no way to suspend the extinctive prescription period as the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits unless the claim for payment for disability benefits is made within six months from the time of filing the claim for payment for disability benefits, the extinctive prescription period of another claim for benefits cannot be accepted.

4) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition, based on the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits, on the ground that the extinctive prescription has expired, is unlawful on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Lee Dong-do

1) In addition to Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, cases where special grounds for suspension are prescribed can be found.