2. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2018 is revoked.

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a water treatment company affiliated with the non-party LAC (hereinafter “non-party hospital”). On April 6, 2017, at around 08:26, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have a diversous aggregate of 1 to 3 pulse pulse of street trees and street lamps by settling the central line while working in the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”) with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and was diagnosed to have a dule the instant accident accompanied by a ductal framework attached to the instant two mouths (hereinafter “instant accident”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20139, Apr. 6, 2017>

B. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant. On June 7, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of approval for the payment of medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to deem the accident vehicle as the Plaintiff-owned vehicle to have worked under the control and management of the business owner at the time of the accident.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination against the Defendant, and the Defendant dismissed the request for examination on November 13, 2018 for the same reasons as the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “other accidents that occur while commuting to and from work by ordinary route and method” in Article 2 of the Addenda of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Act No. 14933, Oct. 24, 2017) is inconsistent with the Constitution by making a decision that “the provisions of Article 37 are inconsistent with the Constitution,” and that “any other accidents that occur during commuting to and from work by ordinary route and method” shall be applied from the first accident after January 1, 2018, the enforcement date of the amended provisions governing occupational accidents. As such, the provision of the new law shall be applied retroactively to the Plaintiff’s instant accidents in accordance with the purport of the inconsistency with the Constitution as of September 26, 2019.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which is premised on the application of the former Act, should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) relevant legislation;