logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.08 2017구단10046
장해급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On May 29, 200, the Plaintiff was an employee affiliated with Thai Enterprise Co., Ltd., who suffered from a traffic accident while performing his/her duties, and received medical treatment and additional medical care (two times) until December 3, 2015, by suffering from the injury of “the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoralsium (openness), 1-3 fluoral fluoral fluoralsium damage, the left-hand fluoral fluoral damage, the refluoral fluoral fluoral damage, the left-hand fluoral damage, the left-hand fluoral damage, the left-hand fluoral damage, the left-hand fluoral damage.”

B. On May 31, 2006 after the second additional medical care, the Plaintiff was determined by the Defendant’s disability grade 9 (Grade 10 on the left side, 12 on the left side).

C. After completing the third additional medical care on December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits on the premise that the existing disability has deteriorated, and the Defendant rendered a decision on the site pay on December 17, 2015 on the ground that there was no change in the existing disability grade.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After determining the existing disability grade of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the left-hand slot of the Plaintiff’s disability grade has deteriorated in such a state that it was impossible to live a normal life without being equipped with a fixed gear, such as significantly decreasing the surrounding land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disability grade is unlawful even if it is always necessary to install a fixed gear, and the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 8 of the disability grade.

B. 1) The criteria for disability grade with respect to the control of any bridge prescribed in attached Table 6 are as follows.

A person who has failed to properly meet the requirements of Section 14 of Part 8, among the three sections of Section 7 of Part 8, shall be one side of Section 10.

arrow