logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.24 2014구합787
장해연금지급거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 1988 to January 25, 2005, from December 12, 2011 to June 14, 2012, from July 17, 2012 to August 28, 2012, from July 25, 2013, from July 25, 2013 to August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was subscribed to the National Pension as a workplace-based insured person or an individually insured person.

B. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed payment of a disability pension on the ground that the Defendant’s sulfur disorder, pan-defluence disorder, etc. (hereinafter “instant disability”) was caused. However, the Defendant applied Article 58 of the former National Pension Act (amended by Act No. 8541, Jul. 23, 2007; hereinafter “former Act”) and notified the Plaintiff of the entitlement to a disability pension on the ground that the instant disability does not fall under the national pension disability rating on the ground that the instant disability does not fall under the national pension disability rating on Nov. 3, 2014.

C. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination to the Defendant, but the said request was dismissed on March 6, 2014.

In accordance with Article 67 of the National Pension Act (amended by Act No. 8541, Jul. 23, 2007; hereinafter “Revised Act”) amended after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant re-examines the degree of disability as of the point at which one and a half years elapsed from the first medical examination date ( September 3, 1992) and the point at which a claim was filed, but also did not constitute a disability pension, and accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision on June 3, 2014 to the Plaintiff that did not constitute a disability pension (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5, 12, and 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion began to be treated as the instant disability from March 2, 1991. Since around March 2, 2002, the Plaintiff retired from office to the company and received drug treatment until now.

arrow