Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Limitation period for a pneumoconiosis compensation pension claim
Supreme Court, July 25, 2019, 2018Du42634 (judgment)
Case name: 미지급보험급여부지급처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When does the three-year limitation period on a claim to a pneumoconiosis compensation pension under Articles 91-3 and 91-8 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act begin to run?
Holding
Absent special circumstances, the period runs from the time when the worker's occupational injury comes within the benefit conditions set by the Act and its Enforcement Decree, so that a benefit may be claimed. For a pneumoconiosis compensation pension, that is the time when the worker's pneumoconiosis state, in its type and the degree of cardiorespiratory impairment, meets the disability grade criteria in Article 83-2 [Tables 11-2 and 11-3] of the Enforcement Decree. On the facts, the deceased came within the grade 1 criteria on 23 May 2012, so the three-year period had expired before the benefit was claimed on 14 June 2016.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 진폐보상연금 청구권의 소멸시효는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 진폐근로자의 진폐 장해상태가 산재보험법 시행령에서 정한 진폐장해등급 기준에 해당하게 된 때부터 진행한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, unless there are special circumstances, the extinctive prescription for a claim for pneumoconiosis compensation annuity begins to run from the time when the state of disability due to pneumoconiosis of the employee suffering from pneumoconiosis comes to meet the criteria for the grade of disability due to pneumoconiosis prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
따라서 진폐보상연금 청구권의 소멸시효는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 진폐근로자의 진폐 장해상태가 산재보험법 시행령에서 정한 진폐장해등급 기준에 해당하게 된 때부터 진행한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, unless there are special circumstances, the extinctive prescription for a claim for pneumoconiosis compensation annuity begins to run from the time when the state of disability due to pneumoconiosis of the employee suffering from pneumoconiosis comes to meet the criteria for the grade of disability due to pneumoconiosis prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.
Factors
- 3년간 행사하지 아니하면 시효로 소멸한다고 규정하고 있다
- 소멸시효는 권리를 행사할 수 있는 때부터 진행하는바
- 재해근로자의 업무상 재해가 산재보험법령이 규정한 보험급여 지급요건에 해당하여 근로복지공단에 보험급여를 청구할 수 있는 때부터 진행한다
- 진폐근로자의 진폐병형, 심폐기능의 정도 등 진폐 장해상태가
- 제83조의2 [별표 11의2], [별표 11의3]에서 정한 진폐장해등급 기준에 해당하게 된 때에
Unofficial English translation
• provides that if it is not exercised for 3 years, it is extinguished by prescription
• Extinctive prescription begins to run from the time when the right may be exercised; and
• it begins to run from the time when the industrial accident of the employee falls under the requirements for payment of insurance benefits prescribed in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and its subordinate statutes, so that a claim for insurance benefits may be filed with the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service
• the pneumoconiosis type, the degree of cardiopulmonary function, etc., of the employee suffering from pneumoconiosis, namely the state of disability due to pneumoconiosis,
• comes to meet the criteria for the grade of disability due to pneumoconiosis prescribed in Article 83-2 [Attached Table 11-2], [Attached Table 11-3]
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances may prevent the three-year period from running from the date the grade criteria were first met?
A change to Article 83-2 of the Enforcement Decree or to [Tables 11-2 and 11-3], which set the grade criteria this decision used, would require reading the entry again. So would a later Supreme Court decision fixing a different start for the period in a case with special circumstances.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 5 April 2018 (2017Nu82514), held that the applicant could claim the difference between the pension for the already determined grade 7 and the pension for grade 1, so that the defendant had to examine whether the deceased had come within the criteria for grade 1 and decide on the benefit; refusing the claim solely because the deceased had not gone through a pneumoconiosis treatment application and adjudication procedure before death was unlawful. On limitation, it rejected the defendant's argument, reasoning that the deceased's disease kept worsening until around April 2014 and so the symptoms could not be treated as having fixed on 23 May 2012.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the first holding: the court below had correctly applied the law on the conditions for a pneumoconiosis compensation pension and had not misapprehended it. It reversed only on limitation, holding that the start of the period is not when the symptoms fix but when the disability state first meets the grade criteria. As the deceased's pneumoconiosis type stayed at type 2 while cardiorespiratory impairment worsened to severe impairment F3 on 23 May 2012, the grade 1 criteria were met on that date and the period had run by 14 June 2016, which is the same where the survivor claims the unpaid pension under Article 81 of the Act.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which special circumstances show that the right could not have been exercised, since the Court stated its rule only for the absence of such circumstances.
- A claim to a benefit other than a pneumoconiosis compensation pension, where the specific starting point (the date the pneumoconiosis grade criteria are met) does not apply, although the general rule, that the period runs from when the benefit conditions under the Act are met so a claim may be made, still applies.
- A worker whose pneumoconiosis type and cardiorespiratory impairment come within a grade criteria only at another date, since the start is tied to that date.
Record verification notes
Set the file's lung function test results and chest radiological findings against Article 83-2(1) [Table 11-2] and (2) [Table 11-3] of the Enforcement Decree to fix the date on which the grade criteria were first met, and count three years from that date to the date of claim. Confirm that the version applied is the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act before the amendment by Act No. 15665 of 12 June 2018. Note that the Court found correct the holding below that refusing the claim merely for want of a treatment application and adjudication procedure was unlawful, so that point stands even though the judgment was quashed on limitation.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 산업재해보상보험법 제91조의3에 따른 진폐보상연금 청구권의 소멸시효 기산점
Unofficial English translation
Starting point of extinctive prescription for a claim for pneumoconiosis compensation annuity under Article 91-3 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Summary of the holding
구 산업재해보상보험법(2018. 6. 12. 법률 제15665호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘산재보험법’이라 한다) 제112조 제1항 제1호는 산재보험법에 따른 보험급여를 받을 권리는 3년간 행사하지 아니하면 시효로 소멸한다고 규정하고 있다. 소멸시효는 권리를 행사할 수 있는 때부터 진행하는바(산재보험법 제112조 제2항, 민법 제166조 제1항), 산재보험법에 따른 보험급여를 받을 권리의 소멸시효는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 재해근로자의 업무상 재해가 산재보험법령이 규정한 보험급여 지급요건에 해당하여 근로복지공단에 보험급여를 청구할 수 있는 때부터 진행한다. 산재보험법 제91조의3, 제91조의8에 따른 진폐보상연금의 경우 진폐근로자의 진폐병형, 심폐기능의 정도 등 진폐 장해상태가 산업재해보상보험법 시행령(이하 ‘산재보험법 시행령’이라 한다) 제83조의2 [별표 11의2], [별표 11의3]에서 정한 진폐장해등급 기준에 해당하게 된 때에 진폐장해등급에 따른 진폐보상연금을 지급하도록 규정하고 있다. 따라서 진폐보상연금 청구권의 소멸시효는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 진폐근로자의 진폐 장해상태가 산재보험법 시행령에서 정한 진폐장해등급 기준에 해당하게 된 때부터 진행한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 산업재해보상보험법(2018. 6. 12. 법률 제15665호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제91조의3, 제91조의8, 제112조 제1항 제1호, 제2항, 산업재해보상보험법 시행령 제83조의2 제1항 [별표 11의2], 제2항 [별표 11의3], 민법 제166조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger