장해등급결정처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was a worker of C, and the Plaintiff was involved in a job-related accident facing the tin mold, which fell from 4.5 meters away from the 4.5m height.
B. The Plaintiff provided medical care from December 5, 2014 to June 25, 2017 with the Defendant’s approval with respect to the disability caused by the said occupational accident (hospitalize 816, 93 days for hospitalization).
C. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant. On July 28, 2017, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 8 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and paid KRW 57,464,350 to the Plaintiff around the above time.
On the other hand, the upper-class and the lower-class public official shall have a right-of-understanding 4 malopical frame, the upper-class public official shall have a right-of-understanding 1,00 malopical frame, the upper-class public official shall have a right-of-understanding 2, the upper-class public official shall have a right-of-understanding 2, the upper-class public official shall have a right-of-understanding 2, the upper-class public official shall have a right-of-understanding 1,00, the upper-class public official shall have a right-of-hand public official shall have a right-hand public official shall have a right-of-hand public official shall have a right-of-hand public official shall have a right-hand public official shall have a right-of-hand public official shall have a right-hand public official shall have a right-of-public official shall have a right-hand public official shall have a right-of-public official shall have a right-hand public official shall have a right-of-public interest.
D. Thereafter, on August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-treatment with the Defendant by stating the reason for receiving the re-treatment as “medical care due to bad faith,” and accordingly, the Defendant approved the re-treatment from August 19, 2017 to October 31, 2017, with the period of the re-treatment as of September 12, 2017.
Since then, the plaintiff has filed a medical treatment plan on several occasions.