장해급여 및 장해위로금 부지급 처분 취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff engaged in dusty work. The plaintiff was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, on April 15, 2002, and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, from April 16, 2002 to April 2002, and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis precision, from April 2002 to April 20, 2002, the defendant was determined as "type 1 and cardiopulmonary function: F0)" by the defendant. After being diagnosed with pneumoconiosis again on September 30, 2002, the plaintiff was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis again on September 30, 200, and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis precision diagnosis from October 7, 2002 to October 12, 202, and thereafter, the defendant was determined as "type 1, merger certificate: machine infection (b)" from around that time.
B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of pneumoconiosis as above, the Plaintiff did not meet the disability grade criteria for pneumoconiosis workers under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Since then, Article 57 [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 193 of July 1, 2003; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) was newly established that “a person who has no cardiopulmonary function and has been determined as having been determined as having type 13” falls under disability grade 13.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant to pay disability benefits and disability consolation benefits by asserting that “if the Plaintiff is based on his/her pneumoconiosis type and the degree of cardiopulmonary function, it constitutes class 13 of the disability grade.”
However, on November 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was diagnosed with Type 1 pneumoconiosis type before July 1, 2003, and falls short of the disability grade standard, and even if not, the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits has expired by prescription,” and that “the Plaintiff’s claim to pay disability benefits was determined by the completion of the disability grade standard and the extinctive prescription, and thus, the Plaintiff not only cannot be subject to disability benefits but also the right to claim disability benefits has expired by prescription.”