진폐요양불승인처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.
On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for pneumoconiosis with the Defendant. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “Mad-type of pneumoconiosis: Mad-type (0/1), cardiopulmonary function: Mad-type (F0), and other mergers: Tbbb (non- Activity-based pulmonary Tuberculosis).”
B. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for revocation of the Defendant’s non-approval disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis type falls under Type 1 and is recognized as eligible for medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as the Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gudan1919, which rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis type constitutes Type 1.
C. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed as 2014Nu319 before the review. Before the review, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis type falls under Type 1 (1/0) and the Plaintiff’s cardiopulmonary function is not equal to or greater than f1, but does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff’s pulmonary tuberculosis was merged with her active tuberculosis, and thus, the Plaintiff does not fall under the category of health care benefit benefits due to the verification of pneumoconiosis, etc.” (hereinafter “the subject judgment”).
The Plaintiff did not appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on July 1, 2015.
2. Grounds for retrial and determination
A. Before the review, which was the evidence of the Plaintiff’s grounds for retrial, the medical record appraisal report on C Hospital of this court (the response of September 30, 2014) stated that the disability grade caused by the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis constitutes “class 1”. However, the Defendant’s request is based on the premise that the disability grade caused by the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis constitutes “class 1.”