산재요양승인결정취소 및 부당이득금결정 취소의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) on July 2, 2015, 2015, i.e., “each of July 9, 2015,” 2, 2015, i.e., “each of July 9, 2015,” i.e., the dismissal of the first instance judgment on July 2, 2015; and (b) on the Plaintiff’s assertion made by this court, the reasoning for the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and
[Supplementary Matters] Even if a civil or administrative trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment which has already become final and conclusive on the same factual basis is significant evidence, and thus, the facts against this cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances where it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt a decision of facts in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil or administrative trial.
(2) On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the purport that he/she was employed as a daily employed worker and sustained injury at the construction site of the instant case, and received insurance benefits from the Defendant by fraud or other improper means despite that he/she was not an employee employed by the Plaintiff in Company B (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du28240, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff received insurance benefits from the Defendant on October 19, 2017, with a judgment of KRW 6 million (Seoul District Court Decision 2017No4210, Jun. 26, 2018) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6126) and the final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6126). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was employed as a daily employed worker of the instant corporation B.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had filed an application for medical care benefits and withdrawn it, and on January 2015.