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 December 9, 201, the Plaintiff, as an employee of Hanyang Construction Co., Ltd., was involved in an accident that meets the pipe set down in the field of the construction of the 7th naval Gun, which was located in the Innju-gun’s Howon, in the field of the construction of the 7th naval Gun, during the course of the cooking work. As a result, the Plaintiff obtained approval for medical care from the Defendant for the “inward Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung Gung

B. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of temporary layoff benefits with the Defendant from April 5, 2012 to May 21, 2012 (47 days). However, on May 31, 2012, the Defendant, on the ground that it is possible for the Plaintiff to be employed and receive treatment for the said period, issued a disposition to pay temporary layoff benefits for the remainder of the site (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination and reexamination, but was dismissed on August 20, 2012 and January 18, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received temporary layoff benefits on November 21, 2012 for the period from November 20, 2012 to January 19, 2013 (61 days) before and after the date of the said surgery. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was subject to a dispute over the grounds for recognition; and (b) the Plaintiff was under the real name or one eye of the disability class 8 subparagraph 1 after the completion of the medical care on January 29, 2013; and (c) the Plaintiff was determined as having the eyesight of not more than 0.02.02. [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1, Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, during the period from April 5, 2012 to May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff provided medical care at his/her own expense except for the day of receiving outpatient treatment. Since the entire physical disability rate under the AMA diagnosis method was 36% before reaching 36%, the Plaintiff could not be employed during the above period as well as other construction-related work. Thus, the Plaintiff did not receive employment.