장해급여부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 23, 2005, the Plaintiff was employed and worked as an electrical contact source to the Seoul Construction Corporation. On November 25, 2005, the Plaintiff was engaged in a melting work at the construction site on November 25, 2005, and suffered from an occupational accident involving images on the left edges, etc. (hereinafter “the first disaster”), and around August 8, 2006, the Plaintiff received a lump sum payment of disability 15,680,000 won from the Defendant, subject to the Defendant’s medical care approval for the “satisfitis 3 degrees on the left side, satch 3 pictures, left-hand-hand part, and 1 metal change on the left side” (hereinafter “the first injury and disease in this case”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20350, Oct. 27, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 21510, Feb. 16, 2009>
B. After that, on September 5, 2010, the Plaintiff was employed and worked as an electrical contact point to the Seoul High School Construction Co., Ltd., and had been provided medical care until March 31, 2013 with the approval of the medical care for the first-hand side of the upper-hand side (five mets) on September 12, 2010 when she was melted with a melter for the installation pipeline work at the second floor at the site of the extension of the living site of the Seocho-gu Seoul High School Living Center at Seocho-gu Seoul High School (hereinafter “instant second disaster”); and on February 17, 2011, 201, the Plaintiff was provided medical care until March 31, 2013, such as receiving the treatment of anti-biotics, divesculing, and skining.
C. On October 2, 2012, the Plaintiff took the left-hand knee-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-off
On May 30, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the payment of disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability status [the Plaintiff’s disability status (e.g., knee-pane-man (hereinafter kne-man)] falls short of the disability benefits standard due to an individual disease-based therapy.
E. The Plaintiff did not object to this.