A. On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff received medical care approval from the Defendant with respect to the “savatus saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saved saveds”

B. On or around March 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for temporary layoff benefits with the Defendant from July 15, 2012 to March 27, 2017. However, on May 22, 2017, the Defendant paid temporary layoff benefits only for the remainder of the period “from July 15, 2012 to September 30, 2014,” based on the result of the Defendant’s advisory opinion, to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2017.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (each entry, including paper numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is against the Defendant’s disposition, premised on September 30, 2014, on the fact that the Plaintiff continued to receive medical treatment of the instant injury and disease even after September 30, 2014, on the premise that the instant injury and disease was terminated.

B. Article 5 subparag. 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “The meaning of cure refers to the cases where the injury or disease completely recovers or the effect of treatment is no longer expected, and the symptoms thereof are fixed.”

In full view of the contents and legislative purport of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Articles 40 (Medical Care Benefits), 51 (Additional Medical Care), 57 (Disability Benefits), and 77 (Prevention and Management of Malics, etc.).