장해등급결정처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade that the Plaintiff rendered on May 2, 2012 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff, a full-time employee of Jung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant accident”), filed a claim with the Defendant for disability benefits, including “damage on the left side and the lower part of the instant accident, damage to the upper part of the water pressure, the left side and the upper part of the aggregate, the 3rd part of the left side of the upper part of the river, cutting off the 4 balance of the left side of the upper part, cutting off the cutting included in the upper part of the 4, 5 balance, 4, 5 balance reduction and loss of the 4, 5 balance reduction and function, 10 aggregate, external stress stress, and depression damage (including a multi-dive personality), 10 aggregate, after completing medical treatment until March 31, 2012; and thereafter, after completing medical treatment on April 3, 2013.
B. On May 2, 2012, the Defendant rendered a judgment of class 6 applicable mutatis mutandis to the disability grade, i.e., “a person who has become unable to permanently use one’s arms” with respect to the left-hand fingers and fingers disability, and rendered a judgment of class 10 applicable mutatis mutandis to the mental disability, and the final disability grade 6 applied mutatis mutandis to the determination of class 14 subparag. 10 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the purport that the grade of disability pertaining to the physical function and the left-hand side should be determined higher than that of the disability grade, but was dismissed on July 30, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s mental function disorder is not class 14, but class 15 of class 9, not class 14, and constitutes “persons whose remaining labor force is limited to a considerable degree,” and at least class 13 should be viewed as “persons remaining with severe psychosis” under class 15 of class 12. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s final disability grade should also be raised from class 6 through class 5.
(b) relevant legislation;