요양결정취소및부당이득징수처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Part 1.A of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that has been changed.
“Medical Care Benefit KRW 22,452,330” referred to in paragraph (1) shall be changed to “Medical Care Benefit KRW 22,452,330 (Medical Care Benefit KRW 7,039,250, Temporary Disability Compensation Benefits KRW 15,330,00, and KRW 8).”
3. The plaintiff added to the end of paragraph 2 of Item 3. (b) of Item 2 of Item 3. of Item 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, asserts that the plaintiff's response to the possibility of industrial accident treatment from the defendant, and that the plaintiff's request for insurance benefits is true that "any accident occurs while being employed as a daily worker in addition to the principal duties of the council of occupants' representatives as the general affairs of the council of occupants' representatives," and that the application for insurance benefits was made by D, etc. which is not the plaintiff but the business owner, and that the report of the plaintiff to the non-resident as the non-party beneficiary was made by 50% of the amount of money collectible at the workplace due to the non-party industrial accident insurance, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case revoked the beneficial administrative disposition against the plaintiff was sufficient to justify the disadvantage that the
If the defect of a beneficial administrative disposition is attributable to a party’s act of filing an application by deceit or other fraudulent means, the party could have known that the benefit from the disposition was illegally acquired, and thus, it cannot be invoked as well as that of an administrative agency’s failure to consider it.
Even if the discretion is not abused, and in this case, the application by the party's concealment or other fraudulent methods is passive through the third party.