장해급여부지급처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 21, 2001, while working for B Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff approved the medical care from the Defendant on September 25, 2002 for the “brain color, scambling beer, and scambling beer (scam)” (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and received medical care until February 29, 2008.
B. On August 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefit with the Defendant, and on September 5, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on disability benefit site payment to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the prescription period of three years from the day following the healing day has expired.”
C. After that, on October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefit with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision on November 19, 2013 on the disability benefit site payment on the ground that “the prescription period of three years from March 1, 2008, which is the day following the healing day, has expired” with the Plaintiff on November 19, 2013.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On April 3, 2009, before the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant (hereinafter “first disability benefits claim”), but it is favorable for the Plaintiff to claim disability benefits after the Defendant’s additional injury and disease approval.
‘A request for return of the first disability benefit claim according to the guidance was made, and no further guidance was received from the defendant.
Although the Plaintiff’s state of disability at the time of the first claim for disability benefits could have been determined as class 1 grade 3, the exercise of right or interruption of prescription as to the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits is considerably difficult due to the Defendant’s erroneous judgment on duties or solicitation for unfair return of disability benefits. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition on the ground of the completion of extinctive prescription constitutes abuse of right against the good faith principle.
(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;