장해등급결정처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court:
On December 6, 2005, while working as a machine installed machine at the Filial Flag Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was affected by an accident where left fingers on the left-hand fingers came into pressure on the machine, and was approved for medical care from the Defendant on January 12, 2006, “the complete cutting of the part on the top part of the 2nd part of the last part of the 3nd part of the left-hand balance, the damage caused by the pressure of the upper part of the 3rd part of the upper part,” and on July 20, 2009, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits from the Defendant after receiving medical care until April 30, 2013.
B. On August 27, 2013, the Defendant determined the disability grade against the Plaintiff as Class 9 No. 15 (A person whose labor remains limited to a considerable degree since his/her disorder in the function or mental function of the new system).
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for additional medical care on the grounds of the aggravation of the composite injury and disease symptoms, which are the instant injury and disease, and received additional medical care from March 10, 2014 after obtaining approval therefor.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative suit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan20816, and the Seoul Administrative Court recognized that on November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative suit against the Defendant for revocation of the instant disposition, and the Seoul Administrative Court recognized on the ground that there was a symptoms that the Plaintiff complained of severe pains to the left-hand shoulder due to the complex 2 type Mabel, hand, and fingers were limited to the exercise scope of the left-hand shoulder, elbow, hand, and fingers. In particular, in the case of the left-hand finger, the Plaintiff appears to have limited to not less than 1/2 of all fingers due to pains or the exerciseable area of the first balance 1/2 or more, and thus, it can be seen that there is a pain to the extent that it always impedes labor other than the work that is easy corresponding thereto.