본문내용 바로가기

CASE RESULTS

[ Private_Law ][SUPREME COURT] Compensation, etc.
2020.04.10

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7834 delivered on September 18, 2001 [Compensation, etc.]

대법원 2001. 9. 18. 선고 2001다7834 판결 [보상금등]

 

【Main Issues】 판시사항

[1] The purpose and the effect of the provision of Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides that in the event that the beneficiary has been paid or may be paid the insurance benefits under this Act, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for accident compensation as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act for the same insured event

[2] Where a beneficiary under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act instituted an administrative proceeding with respect to a previous disposition rejecting the payment of insurance benefits by negligently failing to exhaust a pre-trial administrative petition process and the administrative proceeding was dismissed therefor, thus the beneficiary was unable to receive the insurance benefits for which he or she was duly eligible, whether the employer should be exempted from the liability under the Labor Standards Act for accident compensation as such case should be deemed to be the one where the "beneficiary may be paid the insurance benefits" under Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제48조 제1항의 "수급권자가 이 법에 의하여 보험급여를 받았거나 받을 수 있는 경우에는 보험가입자는 동일한 사유에 대하여 근로기준법에 의한 재해보상책임이 면제된다."는 규정의 취지

[2] 산업재해보상보험법상의 수급권자가 보험급여지급 거부처분에 대하여 전심절차를 거치지 않은 채 행정소송을 제기한 과실로 각하판결을 선고 받아 결과적으로 마땅히 지급받아야 할 보험급여를 지급받지 못하게 된 경우, 이는 동법 제48조 제1항 소정의 '보험급여를 받을 수 있는 경우'에 해당하여 사용자의 근로기준법상 재해보상책임이 면제된다고 판단한 사례

 

【Summary of Decision】 판결요지

[1] Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that, in the event that the beneficiary has been paid or may be paid the insurance benefits under the Act, the insured shall be exempted from the liability for accident compensation as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act for the same insured accident. The purpose and the effect of this provision is to ensure that an employer be exempted from the liability to compensate for the same insured event under the Labor Standards Act in the event that an insurance benefit should duly be paid for the same insured event under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as the employer is insured under the industrial accident compensation insurance, on the grounds that: the industrial accident compensation insurance carries a nature of liability insurance for accident compensation; it would not be disadvantageous to the employees to require the employees to claim the payment of the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits first; the employer would be unreasonably divested of the benefits of the industrial accident compensation insurance to which the employer is mandatorily subscribed and for which the employer has been paying the insurance premiums, if the employer were to provide accident compensation to the employee; and, even if an employer who pays for the accident compensation were to be able to subsequently seek reimbursement from the state, such procedures would complicate legal relationships among those involved.

[2] Where a beneficiary under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act instituted an administrative proceeding with respect to a previous disposition rejecting the payment of insurance benefits by negligently failing to exhaust a pre-trial administrative petition process and the administrative proceeding was dismissed therefor, thus the beneficiary was unable to receive the insurance benefits for which he or she was duly eligible, the employer should be exempted from the liability under the Labor Standards Act for accident compensation as such case should be deemed to be the one where the "beneficiary may be paid the insurance benefits" under Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제48조 제1항은 "수급권자가 이 법에 의하여 보험급여를 받았거나 받을 수 있는 경우에는 보험가입자는 동일한 사유에 대하여 근로기준법에 의한 재해보상책임이 면제된다."고 규정하고 있고, 이 규정의 취지는, 산업재해보상보험이 재해보상에 대한 책임보험적 성질을 가지고 있고, 근로자로 하여금 산업재해보상보험급여를 먼저 청구하도록 하는 것이 근로자에게 불리하지 아니하며, 사용자로서는 강제로 산업재해보상보험에 가입하여 보험료를 납부하여 왔는데도 다시 근로자에 대하여 재해보상을 선이행하여야 한다면 그 보험이익을 박탈당하는 불합리한 결과를 초래할 뿐만 아니라 재해보상을 한 사용자가 사후에 국가에 대하여 구상할 수 있다고 하더라도 그들 사이의 법률관계가 복잡하게 되는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 사용자가 산업재해보상보험에 가입하여 당해 사고에 대하여 마땅히 보험급여가 지급되어야 하는 경우라면 사용자로 하여금 근로기준법에 의한 재해보상책임을 면하게 하자는 것이다.

[2] 산업재해보상보험법상의 수급권자가 보험급여지급 거부처분에 대하여 전심절차를 거치지 않은 채 행정소송을 제기한 과실로 각하판결을 선고받아 결과적으로 마땅히 지급받아야 보험급여를 지급받지 못하게된 경우, 이는 동법 제48조 제1항 소정의 '보험급여를 받을 수 있는 경우'에 해당하여 사용자의 근로기준법상 재해보상책임이 면제된다고 판단한 사례.

 

【Disposition】 주문

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Daejeon High Court.

원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.

 

Reference

Supreme Court Library of Korea 2012 <https://library.scourt.go.kr>