장해급여 부지급처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant Corporation of the name of the injury in the line of duty, i.e., allerfined Dou-gun, Quakua, Quakera-gun, each of which is the part of the lower part of the lower part, the lower part of the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, and the lower part of the body, and the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, and the lower part of the body.
On the other hand, disability benefits were paid in 10,245,730 won in a lump sum.
Even after the aforementioned medical care, the Plaintiff received approval from the Defendant Corporation for additional medical care on the grounds of the sagraduling on February 21, 2017 and the removal of saves metal plates, and completed the medical treatment from January 24, 2017 to February 28, 2018.
After the above additional medical care, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits from the Defendant Corporation on March 19, 2018.
On May 4, 2018, Defendant Corporation rendered a disposition of disability benefit site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) due to the Plaintiff’s absence of a higher disability grade compared to that prior to additional medical care.
The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant Corporation as a procedure for the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 27, 2018, and filed the instant appeal litigation on November 13, 2018.
【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s argument as to each of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings, even after the re-treatment, continues to have serious pains even after the re-treatment, and continued to be treated as physical therapy, injection, rupture treatment, in-depth heat treatment, in-depth heat treatment, and indirect electric current treatment. The Plaintiff’s disability grade under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is higher than that of grade No. 12 subparag. 15 (persons remaining with severe neological symptoms in part) prior to the re-treatment, despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s disability grade still falls under class No. 14, the Plaintiff’s disability grade is considered to fall under class No. 14.