Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

October 26, 2011

Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Guhap1922 Decided December 30, 2010

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s decision to collect unjust enrichment of KRW 7,432,980 against the Plaintiff on October 21, 2009 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) whether the instant disposition was lawful; (b) whether the Plaintiff’s assertion was relevant to the instant disposition; and (c) whether the pertinent disposition was relevant to the pertinent case; and (b) whether the facts of recognition are relevant to relevant laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision No. 2010, Apr. 4 through 59, 201) are identical to the corresponding column among the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the parts written in accordance with the following (b). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with

B. Parts used for repair;

The 2nd 13th 13th 13th 13th 13th 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 2th 2th 2th 18-19th 2th 3th 3th 1st 3th 3th 3th 1st 200, "Evidence 1 through 3th 4th 4th 5th 201," and "No. 24th 2010" as " March 24, 2008," and the part of the 9-10th 9th 10th 2nd 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 202 as "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee" as "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee," and the part of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes are

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the first argument

In full view of all medical opinions on the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-off status at the time of the determination of the above recognition of the disability grade, the scope of exerciseable scope of the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-off status was 175 degrees, and since the Tong Tong was still remaining, the disability grade should be determined by class 14 class 9, a “person who remains neinary in the national department,” but the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s disability grade as class 12 class 6, a person who is the remainder of the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-hand hand-off status of the Plaintiff, by calculating the scope of exerciseable scope of the Plaintiff’s disability grade as 115, on the wind of making an obvious error in calculating the sum of exerciseable scope of each part occurring in the special exhaustion of the Yan National University Hospital.

As above, inasmuch as the Defendant erroneously determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade and paid excessive insurance benefits, the Defendant shall decide to collect the benefits erroneously paid pursuant to Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and even if, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s left-hand fingers have deteriorated after the determination of the instant disability grade and the scope of exerciseable scope has been limited to 90 degree, it is a separate issue for filing another application for disability benefits depending on the aggravated disability condition after additional medical care, and for such reason, it cannot be deemed that the determination of the instant disability grade is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiff's first assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful because the determination of the disability grade of this case is legitimate is without merit.

B. Judgment on the second argument

Where there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency that has conducted an administrative act may revoke it on its own without any separate legal basis: Provided, That when the disposition agency cancels a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it only when it is strong to justify the disadvantage that a party needs to suffer, such as the necessity of the public interest to revoke it, the right to obtain benefits, and infringement of the protection of trust and the stability of legal life, etc., after comparing and comparing the disadvantage that the party may suffer due to the cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006, etc.).

On the other hand, the instant disposition urged the Plaintiff to return the amount equivalent to the portion of disability benefits paid in error on the ground that the Defendant’s determination of the disability grade of this case was erroneous by mistake. This may be deemed to infringe on the Plaintiff’s trust and legal stability in the initial disposition. However, the Defendant is not only obligated to fairly compensate for occupational accidents in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes while managing the insurance premiums collected from the business owner as an institution established to efficiently conduct the industrial accident compensation insurance business, but also the Corporation should collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the benefits if the insurance benefits were erroneously paid. In Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when the Defendant decided to collect unjust enrichment, it shall notify the person liable for payment of the amount without delay. In light of the foregoing, the Defendant’s determination of the disability grade of this case was made by mistake, or one year and seven months passed after such determination was made by the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s disposition was unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's second assertion that the disposition of this case was illegal in violation of the principle of trust protection is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Cho Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)