1. Change of the disability grade No. 1 to No. 5 to No. 8 of the disability grade that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 24, 2017, and 90,856.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 19, 2003, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the medical care from the Defendant as “the Second Embryptive Embryptive Embryptive Embryptor,” which is an occupational accident that occurred on October 19, 2003, and closed medical treatment on November 30, 2015, and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

B. On January 16, 2006, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff constituted “a person who was unable to use two legs permanently,” and determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 1 grade No. 8 (hereinafter “the first disability grade determination”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid disability benefits and nursing benefits.

C. In around 2015, the Defendant conducted an investigation based on the medical records, etc. at the time of the first determination of the disability grade and thereafter, and as a result, at the time of the first determination of the disability grade, deemed that the Plaintiff’s first determination of the disability grade constituted “a person who is not able to do so unless he/she has any obvious impediment to the function or mental function of the neurosis,” and subsequently re-determinations the Plaintiff’s disability grade under class 5 8 (hereinafter “instant re-determination”) after cancelling the first disability grade on March 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant re-determination”), and subsequently, a decision was made to collect 467,095,220 won as much as the difference between class 1 and class 5 of the disability grade out of the disability benefits and 279,039,140 won as unjust enrichment (hereinafter “decision on collection of this case”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant, and the Defendant dismissed the request for review on the instant re-determination, and the decision on collection of this case partially revoked on the ground that it is reasonable to collect unjust enrichment not extinguished by extinctive prescription.

E. In other words, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed a request for reexamination on the instant re-determination on January 19, 2018, and the instant decision on collection is revoked as unjust enrichment equivalent to twice the amount of insurance benefits, and only the amount of insurance benefits erroneously paid.