[Plaintiffs, Appellants] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Attorneys Kim Jeong-han and 1 other, Counsel for the Plaintiffs)
[Defendant, Appellee] Defendant (Law Firm IM, Attorney Oh Seung-hwan and 3 others, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Judgment Below] Uijeongbu District Court Judgment 2022Na201557, decided June 1, 2023
[Order]
The part of the judgment below against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (to the extent supplemented by the preparatory briefs submitted after the deadline) are examined.
1. As to the First Ground of Appeal
A. Where a worker dies due to occupational causes, among the bereaved family members of the deceased—namely, the spouse (including a person in a de facto marital relationship; the same applies hereinafter), children, parents, grandchildren, grandparents, or siblings—the person entitled to benefits receives survivors' benefits from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (hereinafter the "Service") pursuant to Articles 5(3), 10, and 62 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법, hereinafter the "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act"). Article 63(1), items 1 through 4, of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that, among the survivors' benefits, those eligible to receive a survivors' compensation pension (hereinafter "persons eligible for a survivors' compensation pension") shall be, among the bereaved family members who were dependent on the deceased worker for their livelihood at the time of the worker's death: a spouse or a parent or grandparent who is 60 years of age or older; a child who is under 25 years of age; a grandchild who is under 19 years of age; and a sibling who is under 19 years of age or 60 years of age or older, etc. Article 63(3) provides that, among persons eligible for a survivors' compensation pension, the order of priority for the right to receive the survivors' compensation pension shall be: spouse, children, parents, grandchildren, grandparents, and siblings, in that order. Where a person eligible for a survivors' compensation pension who holds the right to receive it (hereinafter a "recipient of a survivors' compensation pension") loses such eligibility, pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the right to receive the survivors' compensation pension transfers to another person of the same rank if one exists, or, if not, to the person of the next rank. In this manner, among the persons eligible for a survivors' compensation pension, only the person with the highest order of priority for the right to receive the survivors' compensation pension becomes the recipient of the survivors' compensation pension and receives the survivors' compensation pension from the Service.
B. In this case, in which the bereaved family members of the deceased, who died due to occupational causes, sought damages against the Defendant, who is the business owner, the court below determined that the non-party, who is the spouse of the deceased, and the Plaintiffs, who are the children of the deceased, were recipients of the survivors' compensation pension of the same rank.
However, in light of the provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act discussed above regarding persons eligible for a survivors' compensation pension, the order of priority for the right to receive the survivors' compensation pension, and the transfer of the right to receive benefits upon loss of eligibility by a recipient of the survivors' compensation pension, it is reasonable to view that only the non-party, who is the spouse of the deceased, among the persons eligible for a survivors' compensation pension, has the highest order of priority for the right to receive the survivors' compensation pension and thus is the recipient of the survivors' compensation pension, while the Plaintiffs, who are the children of the deceased, merely have the possibility of being persons eligible for a survivors' compensation pension depending on whether they meet the qualifications set forth in each item of Article 63(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but do not fall under recipients of the survivors' compensation pension.
Therefore, the judgment below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the scope of recipients of a survivors' compensation pension under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and by failing to conduct the necessary examination, which affected the judgment.
2. As to the Second Ground of Appeal
A. Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides: "Where a person entitled to benefits receives insurance benefits under this Act for the same cause, the insured business owner shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act (민법) or other statutes to the extent of that amount. In this case, a person receiving a disability compensation pension or survivors' compensation pension shall be deemed to have received a lump-sum disability compensation or lump-sum survivors' compensation." Accordingly, in order for the business owner's liability for damages to be exempted to the extent of the amount of insurance benefits received by the person entitled to benefits, there must exist a mutually complementary relationship between the items of damage covered by the insurance benefits and the items of damage subject to civil damages, as well as between the subject holding the right to receive insurance benefits and the subject to whom the civil damages claim belongs. Accordingly, where a worker dies due to occupational causes and the Service pays survivors' benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the person entitled to benefits, no mutually complementary relationship can be recognized between the right to receive such survivors' benefits and the damages claim inherited by the deceased's co-heirs who are not the person entitled to benefits, since the subjects to whom these rights belong are different from each other. Therefore, the deceased's co-heirs who are not the person entitled to benefits may exercise the damages claim they have inherited according to their respective shares of inheritance, regardless of the above provision. Accordingly, the damages claim corresponding to the deceased's lost income is co-inherited by the co-heirs according to their respective shares of inheritance, and the survivors' benefits paid by the Service to the person entitled to benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be deducted only from the damages claim corresponding to the lost income inherited by that person entitled to benefits, up to the limit of that damages claim (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da13104, decided May 21, 2009).
Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 62(2) and (4) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, where there is no person eligible to receive a survivors' compensation pension at the time of the worker's death, or where a person who was receiving a survivors' compensation pension loses eligibility to receive it and there is no other person eligible to receive it, etc., a lump-sum survivors' compensation, among the survivors' benefits, shall be paid. In this case, the order of priority for the right to receive benefits among the bereaved family members follows the order set forth in each item of Article 65(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and among persons within each item, the order follows the sequence in which they are listed; if there are two or more persons entitled to benefits of the same rank, the lump-sum payment shall be divided equally among such bereaved family members.
B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above, the damages claim corresponding to the deceased's lost income is co-inherited by the co-heirs, namely the non-party and the Plaintiffs, according to their respective shares of inheritance, and the converted amount of the lump-sum survivors' compensation received from the Service by the non-party, who is the recipient of the survivors' compensation pension, may be deducted only from the damages claim corresponding to the deceased's lost income inherited by the non-party, up to the limit of that damages claim; and the Plaintiffs, who are not the persons entitled to benefits, may each exercise the damages claim they have respectively inherited.
Contrary to this, the court below, premising that the converted amount of the lump-sum survivors' compensation should be paid equally to the non-party and the Plaintiffs, who are persons entitled to benefits of the same rank, pursuant to Article 65(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, deducted an amount equivalent to one-third of the lump-sum survivors' compensation from the amount of damages corresponding to the deceased's lost income inherited by the Plaintiffs. Such determination by the court below contains an error that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the scope of application of Article 65(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the deduction of survivors' benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from civil damages.
3. Conclusion
The part of the judgment below against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination, and it is so decided by unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.
Justice Seo Kyung-hwan (Presiding Justice), Kim Seon-su, Noh Tae-ak (Justice in Charge), Oh Kyung-mi