일시보상급여청구반려처분 등 취소 청구의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.
In the court of first instance, the plaintiff, around November 11, 2019, sought revocation of the return of the claim for lump-sum compensation to the plaintiff, and revocation of the return of the difference in the amount of compensation for the injury and disease on November 29, 2019. In the preliminary case, the defendant sought revocation of the return of the difference in the amount of compensation for the plaintiff on November 11, 2019 and the return of the compensation for the difference in the amount of compensation for the plaintiff on November 29, 2019.
The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's main claim among the plaintiff's lawsuit, and there is a reason for the plaintiff's conjunctive claim.
In light of this, this was accepted.
Since the plaintiff appealed on the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the first instance, and the defendant did not appeal, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the main claim.
Basic Facts
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites this part in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
It is unlawful for an administrative agency to refuse an application or to take a certain measure within a reasonable period of time with respect to a private person’s right under laws and regulations regarding the legitimacy of the main part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit. In order to deem that a certain measure of an administrative agency constitutes a rejection disposition against an application, the decision of the administrative agency’s final and practical refusal should be deemed to be different from the situation in which the applicant becomes aware by the competent agency of the decision-making of the administrative agency’s final and practical refusal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu4758, Sept. 25, 1990; 2007Du6212, 629, Oct. 23, 2008). The following circumstances revealed by the above basic facts, namely, the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of receiving the Defendant’s request of this case, did not receive the Plaintiff’s respective request of this case.