장애등급결정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. If the Plaintiff conducted ex officio reexamination without delay after February 11, 2010, which was the date the Defendant completely cured the Plaintiff, before the amendment was implemented, the Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of class 3 of the disability grade by the previous public notice. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant neglected reexamination and applied the revised public notice to the Plaintiff’s disability grade 4 is illegal and unjust.
However, (i) In principle, an administrative disposition should be conducted based on the law enforced at the time of the disposition. In light of the fact that when the disposition standards are modified by the amendment of the law, an administrative agency should apply a new disposition standards at the time of disposition instead of the law at the time of application, unless there is any circumstance that the defendant neglected his/her duty to conduct an ex officio reexamination within a certain period after the date of completion of treatment, unless it is the case where the administrative agency received an application and delayed processing and the disposition standards are changed between them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77, May 22, 1984), the defendant's disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless there is any evidence that the defendant neglected his/her duty to conduct an ex officio reexamination within a certain period after the date of completion of treatment, and the period during which the defendant could have been able to conduct an ex officio reexamination under the existing public notice from February 11, 2010 to February 19, 2010, which is the date of enforcement of the revised public notice.
B. In addition, the Plaintiff is subject to Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the Amendment Notice.