(a) Whether the business owner who is the insured may institute an administrative litigation on the disposition of approval for medical care;

(b) Where a disposition of approval for medical care is taken upon a request for examination, etc. filed by an employee, whether the employer should undergo a separate procedure for objection or administrative litigation;

A. Regarding the decision on the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the employer who is the insured has a legitimate interest in dispute as to the legitimacy of the decision.

(b) If the approval disposition of the medical care for the re-employed worker is cancelled and made in accordance with the original decision on the request for review filed by the re-employed worker, the business owner who is the insured may institute an administrative litigation claiming the cancellation of the previous trial procedure as to the disposition of the approval of the medical care.

(a) Article 12 and (b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879 delivered on May 27, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 66Nu32 delivered on April 28, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 64Nu39 delivered on January 21, 1969

Attorney Cho Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of the office of the Ministry of Labor

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu665 delivered on January 29, 1985

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the decision on the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, an employer who is an insured person has a legitimate interest in dispute as to whether it is legitimate (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879, May 27, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879, May 27, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879, May 27, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu39, Jan. 21, 1969). In a case where the medical care approval disposition for the re-employed employee has been cancelled according to the decision on the re-examination raised by the re-employed employee, the employer may institute an administrative suit against the revocation of the pre-examination without the need to take a separate procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

According to the records, the defendant's approval disposition of the medical care in this case against the non-party 1, who is an employee belonging to the plaintiff, was non-approval disposition on the application of the above non-party 1, but it is evident that the above non-party 1's request for review and the decision to revoke the initial approval disposition of the medical care in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee as a result of the request for review was made based on the decision. Thus, the plaintiff, the insured, can file an administrative suit against the non-party 1 for the revocation of the request for review and re-examination as to the industrial accident compensation insurance and examination. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest in litigation in the administrative litigation or the pre-trial procedure

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the medical care approval disposition of this case was acknowledged as being injured by the non-party 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff, on April 17, 1983, at the ○○ Mining Complex 75 M.L. 2rdle of the plaintiff management's ○○○ Mining Complex 75 M.L. 2ndle of the above mine, and during work, the non-party 1 suffered from the injury of the right-hand typitis and the first, the second pressle of the above cepium. The above non-party 1 suffered the above injury at that time, even though it was recognized as having been suffering from the above injury, there is no evidence to regard the above injury as being caused by the fallen during the above work, and on the contrary, according to the macro evidence, the above injury was acknowledged as being caused by the wind that the non-party 1 fell from the roof of the non-party 2, who resides in the same Ri as the end of January 1983.

According to the records, it is recognized that, around July 20, 1979, the above non-party 1 was in a state where the part of the first and second trends was narrow since the time when he became a member of the plaintiff company, and that the non-party 1 fell down on the ground of the 1.8 meters away from the house roof of the non-party 2 who was 1.8 meters away from the house roof of the non-party 2 on January 1983, and that he fell on the ordinary church.

However, even if the above worker had a flat disease, it should be viewed as an occupational accident. According to the records No. 4-15, the above non-party 1 was absent from office, but he was working normally as he did. The above non-party 6-2 was working for the above disaster since the above non-party 1 did not suffer from the above non-party 1's occupational injury at the time of the above accident. According to the records, the non-party 1 did not suffer from the above non-party 1's occupational injury, and the non-party 1 was unable to suffer from the above accident at the time of the above accident, and the non-party 1 had been working for the above non-party 1's own injury at the time of the above non-party 1's own injury until the above accident occurred at the time of the above non-party 1's own injury, and the non-party 1's above non-party 3's non-party 4's personal injury and the above non-party 1's non-party 3's personal injury should be found high.

Nevertheless, the court below's order to revoke the medical care approval of this case on the ground that the above injury of Nonparty 1 cannot be deemed to be the injury suffered during the above work is against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accidents, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)