2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff was under medical care on or before May 31, 201 with the fall of two frameworks, etc. during work at the construction site on September 27, 2008, and received from the Defendant for medical care until May 31, 2011. The Plaintiff was determined by the Defendant as having received from the Defendant “one-class nursing benefits (1-4) of the during mouth, Haak River, Damage to Haak River, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, and one-class and half-class disability rating (1-class 6) of the Defendant’s physical disability grade and one-class, one-class and half-class disability pension or one-class disability rating (1-class and one-class disability rating).

B. After that, on September 12, 2012, the Defendant re-determination of the adjusted disability grade as class 7 with respect to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2012, ① grade 15 (persons whose work remains limited to a considerable degree of injury to the function or mental function of the neurosis system) and ② grade 8, 11 (the person who has lost his/her heart or one’s extension) with respect to the plepy function disorder, and cancelled the previous decision to receive occasional nursing benefits as it does not frequently require nursing, and accordingly, collects the difference in disability pension paid excessively after June 1, 201 due to changes in the disability grade and twice the amount of nursing benefits as unjust enrichment. As a result, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee protested against the above disposition on April 12, 2013, the subject of disability grade re-determination and the cancellation of the disposition to revoke nursing benefits.