2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On June 4, 2007, the Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as light salt, left-hand salt satis, right-hand 2 balance heat, left-hand satis, the left-hand satis, and the left-hand satise satise satise satis, the left-hand satise satise satis, etc. due to occupational accidents, and filed a claim for compensation for disability with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. On March 208, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under class 6 of class 12 of the disability grade (hereinafter “instant disability grade determination”), which is “the remaining person who may interfere with the function of one joints of the three joints of one part of the three joints of one arms” (hereinafter “instant disability grade”), around 11,562,410 won for lump-sum disability compensation (hereinafter “instant benefit”) was paid to the Plaintiff.

C. However, on October 21, 2009, the Defendant decided to collect the difference of disability grade of KRW 7,432,980 as unjust enrichment and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-off disability status falls under class 175, and falls under class 14 class 9, a person who remains in the Republic of Korea, and paid compensation for disability grade 12 class 6, by calculating the scope of movement at 115.”

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on the instant disposition, but was dismissed, again filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Committee, but was dismissed on June 24, 2010, and received a written decision on June 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Even if the Plaintiff’s left-hand completion falls under class 6 of class 12, it is unlawful for the Defendant to make a decision to collect unjust enrichment without disregarding such circumstances even though it falls under class 6 of class 12 due to the Plaintiff’s current physical exercise scope

(2) The determination of the instant disability grade was made by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff received the instant benefits, and the Plaintiff did not have any reason attributable to the Plaintiff in the process. Thus, the Defendant’s decision of collection of unjust enrichment was too harsh to make an erroneous determination of the instant disability grade and making a decision of collection of unjust enrichment was contrary to the principle of protection of trust.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) Upon filing the instant claim, the Plaintiff attached the disability diagnosis report on February 13, 2008 by the main doctor (the doctor of the Seocheon-gu Hospital). The disability diagnosis report is presented as follows: “The scope of physical exercise on the left hand hand hand hand in the state where there is a restriction on the dynamic and control movement, in particular, where there is an opinion that the left part of the perfect part of the left part of the completion pipe might be 135 degrees (the size of physical exercise on the left hand, 60 degrees, 40 degrees, 15 degrees, 20 degrees, 15 degrees, 30 degrees).”

(B) On February 21, 2008, the advice of the Defendant Chungcheong Branch presented the opinion that “The Plaintiff’s left-hand end-hand end-hand end-hand end-hand end-hand is normal and have no strength, and there is no obvious constant connection, and there is no intermittent pains on both sides.”

(C) As above, the Plaintiff’s primary doctor and the Defendant’s advisory opinion were significant differences, and the Defendant requested the YY Hospital to provide the Plaintiff with a special medical examination. On March 10, 2008, the doctor in charge of the YY Hospital at YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY : (i) as a result of the Plaintiff’s special examination against the Plaintiff on March 10, 2008, “(i) as a result, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., g., e., g., e., e., e., e.

(D) On March 21, 2008, the Defendant determined the instant disability grade on the basis of the special results of the relevant hospital in the Chungcheongnam-si University. However, even though the sum of each exercise scope on the special examination book was 175 degrees (i.e., 5 + 70 + 20 + 30), the Plaintiff’s total sum of exercise scope on the special examination book was 175 degrees (i.e., 5 + 70 + 20 + 30), resulting in an error, and was limited to at least 1/4 of the normal exercise area (180 degrees) of the Plaintiff’s hand-owned item (180 degrees) and was determined as class 6 of the disability grade.

(E) On March 24, 2010 after the Defendant paid the instant benefits to the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued an insurance benefit payment confirmation center to the effect that the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,562,410 by stating that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was 12 grade 6,00, but there was no other separate notification as to the details of the special results on which such decision was based, or the criteria for determining the disability grade.

(F) In a regular audit in 2009, the Defendant pointed out the fact that the Plaintiff paid excessive lump-sum disability compensation benefits to the Plaintiff by erroneously calculating the scope of the exercise due to the Plaintiff’s peculiar results, and issued the instant disposition that collects the difference.

(G) Upon receiving the Plaintiff’s request for review of the instant disposition, the Defendant requested the headquarters’s advisory advice to review the relevant materials. The Defendant’s advisory opinion presented that there was no opinion on “EMG’s inspection,” and that there was no serious impact on the satisfe salt of the left-hand satch and the damage of the satisfys and the satisfys of the satisfys, the left-hand satisfe, and the damage

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, the entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination on the first argument

Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that the Service shall collect an amount equivalent to the amount of benefits paid in cases where there are insurance benefits mistakenly paid. The Defendant, based on the initial special results, determined the disability grade of this case on the wind that causes apparent mistakes in calculating the sum of physical exerciseable scope by part even though the scope of physical exerciseable scope was 175 in the determination of the Plaintiff’s disability grade. In full view of all medical opinions presented regarding the Plaintiff’s disability status, it is deemed that the physical exercise area of the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-hand hand-over at the time of the instant claim was not limited to 1/4 or more, and no error exists in the Defendant’s disposition. As such, even though the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 9, as the result of erroneous determination by class 12-6, barring any special circumstances, the Defendant should recover the difference of the insurance benefits paid in excess, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff’s disability grade 12-6 became worse thereafter, the Plaintiff’s allegation does not affect this part of this case.

(3) Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

Where there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency which has conducted an administrative act may revoke it by itself: Provided, That when it revokes a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it only when it is strong to justify the disadvantage that a party needs to suffer due to the necessity of the public interest to revoke it, such as the protection of trust and the infringement of stability of legal life, etc. after comparing and comparing the disadvantages suffered by the party concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006).

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the Defendant’s opinion that it would be 135 degrees of disability at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for the determination of the disability grade, and even if such determination was recognized, it would have been subject to determination of grade 12 pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act if the Plaintiff’s opinion was adopted because the scope of the Plaintiff’s exercise was limited to 1/4 or more. Unlike the Plaintiff’s opinion on consultation, the Defendant expressed that the scope of the Plaintiff’s exercise was normal and obvious, and that it would not have been consistent with the Plaintiff’s view that it would not have been objectively decided on the Plaintiff’s disability grade because it would have been unreasonable for the Plaintiff to view that the Plaintiff’s request for determination of the disability grade was based on the Defendant’s opinion that it would have been unreasonable for the Plaintiff to view that the Plaintiff’s request for determination of the disability grade was unreasonable, and that the Defendant would not be objectively 12 grade 6 of the Plaintiff’s request for determination of the disability grade at the time of the Plaintiff’s request.

(4) The instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Yellow Sung-ju (Presiding Judge)