"Period of absence from employment due to medical treatment" under Article 9-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

For the purpose of Article 9-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the term "period of absence from employment due to medical care" means the period during which a worker was unable to receive wages because the worker was unable to provide his/her work as the worker was suffering from occupational injury, which includes not only the period of medical treatment but also the period for which the worker was not paid wages because the worker was not actually employed due to the worker's non-employment in his/her home

Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act Article 9-4

Plaintiff

Ministry of Labor and the head of Seoul Gwanak-gu office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu609 delivered on January 14, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "period of absence from employment due to medical care" under Article 9-4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides that an amount equivalent to 60/100 of average wages shall be paid as temporary layoff benefits for the guarantee of the minimum living of workers and their families under medical care due to occupational injury, means the period for which a worker was unable to receive wages because the worker was unable to provide his/her labor due to occupational injury. Thus, it shall be deemed that the period of absence from the medical care includes not only the period for which the worker was provided with occupational injury but also the period for which the worker was unable to actually be employed due to his/her failure to provide his/her medical care at his/her home

However, the defendant judged that only the period of treatment for occupational injury at a medical institution is subject to temporary disability compensation benefits, and decided that the plaintiff, an employee, should not pay temporary disability compensation benefits for the remaining period except the period of treatment for occupational injury at a medical institution. In this regard, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

Although the judgment of the court below that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, the conclusion is just and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on temporary layoff benefits or failing to properly examine the case. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, in light of the degree of occupational injury suffered by the plaintiff, the defendant should pay temporary disability compensation benefits for the period of the time when the plaintiff was unable to actually find a medical care at his home due to his occupational injury.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)