휴업급여부지급취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 30, 1998, the Plaintiff was employed by Samddong Co., Ltd. and was engaged in the business of importing, selling, and installing dental appliances. On February 201, 209, the Plaintiff left the hospital management consulting firm, and then retired from the hospital on or around February 2011. On August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “Redive cell fome type (hereinafter “instant disease”) and was approved from the Defendant on June 18, 2012 for the instant disease from August 23, 201 to December 31, 2015.
B. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for temporary layoff benefits with the Defendant from July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2014. However, on August 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of the site for temporary layoff benefits on the ground that “the employment is deemed possible after July 1, 2014.”
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(C) The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on April 20, 2015 with the Board of Audit and Inspection (hereinafter “Board”) to the Board of Audit and Inspection, but was dismissed on April 20, 2015. (The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the facts that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion is currently making every effort to stabilize mental and physical stability in order to prevent recurrence by moving to hills for the treatment of the injury and disease of this case. In the case of Gangnam, there is no economic structure that the plaintiff had previously been in charge of the work or any other similar work, and thus, there is no objective condition for employment. Even if there is a different occupation, it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to provide employment opportunities and provide medical care.
Considering the unique nature of cancer patients, the defendant should pay temporary layoff benefits so that it can be more advanced in the medical care rather than employment during the period recognized as the medical care, and even though the defendant recognized the period of the plaintiff's medical care until December 31, 2014, he/she should pay the medical care benefits only on the day he/she applies to the medical institution arbitrarily.