2...

On May 3, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 493,240 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff received insurance benefits or compensation under other statutes due to a disease incurred in the course of performing official duties, etc. from February 5, 2007 to October 26, 2007, on the ground that the Plaintiff received the health insurance benefits as the above injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] In accordance with Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, where an administrative agency imposes an obligation on a party or imposes a disposition that restricts his/her rights and interests, the parties should be notified of matters such as “disposition title”, “the facts causing the disposition and the details of the disposition and the legal basis thereof,” “where submission of opinions is not made”, “the name and address of the agency which submitted opinions”, “the name and address of the agency which submitted opinions”, “the deadline for submitting opinions”, and “the deadline for submitting opinions.”

If an administrative agency did not give the above prior notice to the party while making an infringing administrative disposition, such disposition cannot avoid revocation due to its illegality unless it falls under exceptional cases of such prior notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du30687 Decided January 16, 2013, etc.). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had given prior notice under Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act to the Plaintiff before rendering the instant disposition, and the instant disposition does not constitute a case where the prior notice may be omitted. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful due to its lack of procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and therefore, the remainder of the plaintiff's argument.