산업재해보상보험법상의 구상권 행사법리 (Research on the Right to Indemnity of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 건국대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 일감법학 / 30호 / 301 ~ 319페이지
· 저자명 : 최윤희

초록

이 논문에서는 산업재해보상보험법에서 규정하고 있는 업무상 재해에 대하여 책임 있는 제3자가 따로 있는 경우 근로복지공단의 제3자에 대한 구상권 행사법리와 관련하여 몇 가지 논점들을 살펴보았다. 피보험이익의 이중보장과 배상책임이 있는 자의 책임을 부당하게 면제하는 결과가 초래되는 것을 피하려는 구상권이 추구하는 법적 이념과 근로자 보호를 위한 사회 보험적 기능을 수행하여야 하는 산업재해보상보험법 본연의 기본 이념을 모두 만족시키기 위해서는 구상권 행사의 대상이 되는 제3자의 인정 범위 및 피해근로자의 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권 중 구상권 행사 대상이 되는 부분의 합리적 조정이 필요하다고 본다. 이외에도 피해근로자가 자신의 손해배상청구권을 면제 내지 포기한 경우의 법리와 구상권의 소멸시효 관련 법리를 모두 살펴보았다.

영어초록

In this paper I have reviewed the right to indemnity of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and its related legal matters. The right to indemnity of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is based on the idea that any unfair double reimbursement of damage or unfair exemption of the liable person responsible for the industrial accident, should be avoided. It should be noted, however, that one more important goal the Industrial Accident compensation Insurance Act should pursue is that the Act should protect the proper level of life of the injured laborer. Accordingly, a careful balancing of the two different basic ideas of the Act is required. In this regard, the scope of the liable third party should be properly limited or expanded case by case. For example, persons in special types of employment especially independent contract workers of precarious employment relationship are frequently categorized as those who are not laborers, and therefore in many cases easily interpreted as a liable third party by the court. However, their real working conditions are much more of the laborers employed by the employer of the injured laborer in many cases. On the other hand, injuries caused by any intentional attack of colleague laborers are usually regarded as those occurred during the normal course of work of a workplace. As the result, those intentional colleagues are exempted from their liabilities in many cases. My opinion is that the above two cases should be reversed. In addition to that, a proper adjustment of the amount of the compensation indemnity is required, given that the Act does not fully cover the real damage reimbursement for the injured laborer. I have also reviewed other related legal matters like the waiver of the damage reimbursement right of the injured laborer against the liable third party and the prescription period of the indemnity right.

참고자료

· 없음