※ Majung Law Firm’s Foreigner Center is dedicated to protecting the rights of foreigners residing in Korea.
The court has ruled that even if the family of an industrial accident victim receives a compensation amount exceeding the lump-sum survivor benefit, they can still apply for a separate survivor’s pension.
According to legal sources on the 23rd, the Seoul Administrative Court’s 8th Division (Chief Judge Lee Jeong-hee) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the wife of deceased Chinese construction worker A against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (KCOMWEL) to cancel the decision not to pay survivor benefits and funeral expenses. The first-instance ruling was finalized last month after KCOMWEL decided not to appeal.
Family: “Receiving Compensation Exceeding Lump Sum Does Not Extinguish Entitlement”
In August 2019, A was confirming waterproofing work on the waterproofing curb of a ventilation duct on the third basement floor of the Seoul Subway Line 7 extension construction site in Seo-gu, Incheon, when he was struck on the head by a falling object from the first basement floor, where formwork was being dismantled. He died from his injuries. In December of that year, the family agreed to a compensation settlement of 330 million won with the company.
The issue arose because the compensation included the lump-sum survivor benefit stipulated by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (IACI Act). The company planned to pay the compensation to the family first and then receive the lump sum from KCOMWEL on behalf of the family. According to Article 62 of the IACI Act, if a person eligible for a survivor’s pension requests it, half of the lump-sum survivor benefit is paid as a lump sum, and the rest is paid in the form of a pension.
The family applied for the remaining half of the survivor’s pension from KCOMWEL, but KCOMWEL refused, citing that the family had received compensation (330 million won) exceeding the lump-sum survivor benefit (256 million won), thus extinguishing the claim for the lump-sum benefit. The family filed a lawsuit in March 2020.
The court ruled in favor of the family, stating that they still qualified for the reduced survivor’s pension. The court explained, “The IACI Act’s provision to pay part of the survivor’s benefit as a pension aims to strengthen the survivor’s right to receive a pension, contributing to their livelihood stability and welfare improvement. It is difficult to interpret that the entire entitlement is extinguished solely because the family received compensation exceeding the lump-sum benefit from the employer.”
Court: “Purpose of Strengthening Survivor’s Pension Entitlement, Entitlement Remains”
The court also rejected KCOMWEL’s argument of ‘double benefits.’ The court noted, “According to KCOMWEL’s argument, it would lead to a conclusion that the amount claimed by the original claimant of the pension entitlement could exceed the amount of the lump-sum survivor benefit, and it would likely go against the purpose of the IACI Act, which aims to protect the pension entitlement. If the employer had agreed to receive the entire lump sum on behalf of the family, they could request a refund from the family based on that premise.”
The court particularly emphasized that the survivor’s pension is not limited by a total amount ceiling as long as the entitlement qualifications are maintained. The court stated, “The lump-sum survivor benefit is the minimum amount as a survivor’s benefit, and the survivor’s pension has at least equal value. If the survivor’s pension is not paid due to the deduction of the lump-sum survivor benefit when the family receives compensation for lost income from the employer or a third party, it would infringe on the entitlement.”
Attorney Kim Yong-jun and Attorney Kim Wi-jeong from MaJung Law Firm, representing A’s family, explained, “The court ruled that at least 50% of the pension entitlement cannot be extinguished by a civil settlement, and in this case, the scope of the settlement was limited to the lump-sum survivor benefit. The construction company’s subrogation claim is limited to 50% of the lump-sum benefit, and the remaining half of the pension entitlement still belongs to the family, making KCOMWEL’s refusal unlawful.”
Majung provides legal consultations for foreigners living in Korea who need legal assistance. Please contact us at the number below for more detailed consultations.
The court has ruled that even if the family of an industrial accident victim receives a compensation amount exceeding the lump-sum survivor benefit, they can still apply for a separate survivor’s pension.
According to legal sources on the 23rd, the Seoul Administrative Court’s 8th Division (Chief Judge Lee Jeong-hee) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the wife of deceased Chinese construction worker A against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (KCOMWEL) to cancel the decision not to pay survivor benefits and funeral expenses. The first-instance ruling was finalized last month after KCOMWEL decided not to appeal.
Family: “Receiving Compensation Exceeding Lump Sum Does Not Extinguish Entitlement”
In August 2019, A was confirming waterproofing work on the waterproofing curb of a ventilation duct on the third basement floor of the Seoul Subway Line 7 extension construction site in Seo-gu, Incheon, when he was struck on the head by a falling object from the first basement floor, where formwork was being dismantled. He died from his injuries. In December of that year, the family agreed to a compensation settlement of 330 million won with the company.
The issue arose because the compensation included the lump-sum survivor benefit stipulated by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (IACI Act). The company planned to pay the compensation to the family first and then receive the lump sum from KCOMWEL on behalf of the family. According to Article 62 of the IACI Act, if a person eligible for a survivor’s pension requests it, half of the lump-sum survivor benefit is paid as a lump sum, and the rest is paid in the form of a pension.
The family applied for the remaining half of the survivor’s pension from KCOMWEL, but KCOMWEL refused, citing that the family had received compensation (330 million won) exceeding the lump-sum survivor benefit (256 million won), thus extinguishing the claim for the lump-sum benefit. The family filed a lawsuit in March 2020.
The court ruled in favor of the family, stating that they still qualified for the reduced survivor’s pension. The court explained, “The IACI Act’s provision to pay part of the survivor’s benefit as a pension aims to strengthen the survivor’s right to receive a pension, contributing to their livelihood stability and welfare improvement. It is difficult to interpret that the entire entitlement is extinguished solely because the family received compensation exceeding the lump-sum benefit from the employer.”
Court: “Purpose of Strengthening Survivor’s Pension Entitlement, Entitlement Remains”
The court also rejected KCOMWEL’s argument of ‘double benefits.’ The court noted, “According to KCOMWEL’s argument, it would lead to a conclusion that the amount claimed by the original claimant of the pension entitlement could exceed the amount of the lump-sum survivor benefit, and it would likely go against the purpose of the IACI Act, which aims to protect the pension entitlement. If the employer had agreed to receive the entire lump sum on behalf of the family, they could request a refund from the family based on that premise.”
The court particularly emphasized that the survivor’s pension is not limited by a total amount ceiling as long as the entitlement qualifications are maintained. The court stated, “The lump-sum survivor benefit is the minimum amount as a survivor’s benefit, and the survivor’s pension has at least equal value. If the survivor’s pension is not paid due to the deduction of the lump-sum survivor benefit when the family receives compensation for lost income from the employer or a third party, it would infringe on the entitlement.”
Attorney Kim Yong-jun and Attorney Kim Wi-jeong from MaJung Law Firm, representing A’s family, explained, “The court ruled that at least 50% of the pension entitlement cannot be extinguished by a civil settlement, and in this case, the scope of the settlement was limited to the lump-sum survivor benefit. The construction company’s subrogation claim is limited to 50% of the lump-sum benefit, and the remaining half of the pension entitlement still belongs to the family, making KCOMWEL’s refusal unlawful.”
Majung provides legal consultations for foreigners living in Korea who need legal assistance. Please contact us at the number below for more detailed consultations.
- Majung Law Firm Foreigner Center: 02-3143-1158
- Online Consultation: https://majungforeign.kr/contact/?lang=en
