요양승인취소처분 등
1. The decision on collection of unjust enrichment rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 27, 2013 is revoked.
2. The plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 25, 1998, the Plaintiff was working for B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on February 25, 1998. On March 20, 2001, the Plaintiff was traveling a business trip to Busan using his own car to purchase goods as necessary at the construction site.
B. On the way back to the racing after completing its duties, the Plaintiff took out a traffic accident that conflicts with D cargo vehicles from the high speed distance located in the front dong of the race-si of the non-party company's director C, accompanied by the non-party company's office at around 03:00 of the same month (hereinafter "the instant accident"). The Plaintiff suffered serious damage to the number of the ships, the spawn, etc. due to the instant accident.
C. On September 12, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constituted “occupational accident” as prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision to grant medical care approval on December 6, 2001 (hereinafter “prior disposition”). From this point of time, the Plaintiff paid the insurance benefits of KRW 719,673,180 in total to the Plaintiff from May 22, 2013 (21,653,840 disability benefits of KRW 60,948,760, KRW 21,336,820, KRW 1,730, KRW 1,630, KRW 254,60, KRW 1501, KRW 352,401, KRW 3501,700, KRW 700.
On May 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) revoked ex officio the instant prior disposition on the ground that “The instant accident was confirmed to have driven under the influence of alcohol 0.120% at the time of the instant accident, and does not constitute occupational accidents pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as a result of the Plaintiff’s criminal act; and (b) constitutes cases where the insurance benefits were paid by fraud or other improper means pursuant to Article 84(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, among the insurance benefits already paid to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2013, on the ground that “The instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s criminal act, and does not constitute occupational accidents; and (c) constitutes cases where the insurance benefits were paid by fraud or other improper means; and (d) as of May 22, 2013, KRW 33,3