2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

A. On March 15, 2001, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits from March 15, 2001 to July 31, 2003, after suffering from the side side of the right knee-fee-fee-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe

B. On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff received treatment from June 16, 2006 to October 28, 2008 due to the recurrence of the instant injury (hereinafter “the first re-transmission”), such as undermining the right knee-fee-fee-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe

C. On March 17, 2009, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from March 16, 2009 to January 13, 2010, such as re-adverting of the instant injury to a diplomatic mission with the right knee under the influence of the head of the mission, etc., on or around February 25, 2009 (hereinafter “the second re-transmission”). The Plaintiff claimed and received medical care benefits from the Defendant on February 25, 2009.

D. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for re-medical care benefits under Article 51 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the Defendant from June 16, 2006 to October 28, 2008, and filed a claim for temporary layoff benefits under Article 52 of the same Act for the period of non-employment due to the said treatment.

E. From August 9, 2006 to February 12, 2007, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the medical care benefits shall not be paid on the ground that the treatment falls under the first re-payment of the instant medical care benefits from August 21, 2010, but the period of extinctive prescription has three years elapsed since the remainder of the treatment does not fall under the first re-payment of the instant medical care benefits.

F. On July 23, 2010, the Defendant was unable to be employed from August 9, 2006 to February 12, 2007 due to the first recurrence of the instant period, or from the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the right to claim temporary layoff benefits, the Defendant issued a disposition that the Defendant would not pay temporary layoff benefits for the period from August 9, 2006 to February 12, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition,” and the temporary layoff benefits for the said period was “instant temporary layoff benefits”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (including these various numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) Interruption of extinctive prescription;

On July 23, 2007, February 25, 2009, and January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for re-medical care benefits for the first recurrence of the instant medical care benefits with the Defendant. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for re-medical care benefits for the first recurrence of the instant medical care benefits was interrupted pursuant to the first proviso of Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The interruption of the extinctive prescription is also effective in the instant right to claim for temporary layoff benefits pursuant to the latter part of Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is the three-year extinctive prescription period, and thus, the claim for the instant temporary layoff benefits was filed on May 31,

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not pay temporary layoff benefits on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the claim for temporary layoff benefits has expired is unlawful.

(b) Abuse of rights;

Even if the extinctive prescription of the right to claim temporary layoff benefits of this case has expired, the Defendant appears to have the same attitude as not claiming the completion of the extinctive prescription to the Plaintiff, thereby making it considerably difficult for the Plaintiff to take measures to interrupt the extinctive prescription, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the extinctive prescription expired

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not pay temporary layoff benefits on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the claim for temporary layoff benefits has expired is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Determination as to the allegation of the interruption of extinctive prescription on July 23, 2007

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 and 1-3, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff claims for medical care benefits for the first recurrence of the instant case on July 23, 2007. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above claim for medical care benefits was suspended pursuant to Article 80 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8694 of Dec. 14, 2007), but at the time, there was no provision that the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the above claim for medical care benefits would also affect the right to claim for temporary disability compensation benefits (wholly amended by Act No. 8694 of Dec. 14, 2007, the above provision was newly established) and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim for temporary disability compensation benefits of this case cannot be deemed to have been suspended ( even if the extinctive prescription of the claim for temporary disability compensation benefits of this case was suspended, according to each of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 2 and No. 5, and the above claim for temporary disability. 70

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the allegation of the interruption of extinctive prescription on February 25, 2009

On February 25, 2009, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff claimed for medical care benefits from the second recurrence of the instant medical care benefit on the sole basis of the statement in the evidence Nos. 5-1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the same as seen earlier, that the Plaintiff claimed for medical care benefits from the second recurrence of the instant medical care benefits on February 25, 2009). Thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for temporary layoff benefits cannot be deemed to have been interrupted unless the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for medical care benefits has been interrupted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Determination as to the allegation of interruption of extinctive prescription on January 8, 2010

According to the purport of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff claimed for medical care benefits for the second recurrence of the instant evidence to the Defendant.

1) Whether the extinctive prescription of a right to claim temporary layoff benefits from August 9, 2006 to January 7, 2007 is interrupted

The extinctive prescription of the right to claim for medical care benefits shall proceed every day from the day following the date of receiving additional medical care (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2318, Nov. 14, 1989). As such, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for medical care benefits for treatment from August 9, 2006 to January 7, 2007 has already expired three years before January 8, 2010, and thereafter, even if the Plaintiff claims for re-medical care benefits on January 8, 2010, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for temporary layoff benefits has not been interrupted even if the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for re-medical care benefits for treatment has not been interrupted from August 9, 206 to January 7, 2007.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the extinctive prescription of a right to claim temporary layoff benefits from January 8, 2007 to February 12, 2007 is interrupted

On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for re-medical care benefits for the first recurrence of the instant primary accident with the Defendant on January 8, 2010, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for re-medical care benefits for treatment from January 8, 2007 to February 12, 2007 pursuant to the first sentence of Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was interrupted, and the interruption of such extinctive prescription extends to the right to claim temporary disability compensation benefits in this case for the said period pursuant to the latter part of Article 113 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (it is reasonable to interpret that “the first claim requiring judgment on whether or not the occupational accident occurred” includes “the first claim requiring judgment on whether or not the occupational

Since the Defendant asserts that the interruption of the extinctive prescription has expired since the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim for medical care benefits from January 8, 2010, the Defendant asserted that the interruption of the extinctive prescription expired. Accordingly, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the withdrawal of the claim for medical care benefits from February 19, 2010. However, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s claim for medical care benefits again on May 31, 2010, which is within six months from the Plaintiff, did not extinguish the interruption of the extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 112(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 170(2) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit and this part of the plaintiff's argument is with merit.

D. Judgment on abuse of rights

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The reason for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “The reason for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except for adding (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du11013, Nov. 24, 201)” (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1013, Nov. 24, 201). As such, it is cite

E. Sub-committee

The Plaintiff’s right to claim temporary layoff benefits of this case was not expired, and thus, the instant disposition that decided not to pay the temporary layoff benefits of this case on the ground of the expiration of the extinctive prescription is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Park Jong-nam (Presiding Judge)