2013Gu 1138 Revocation of Disposition to change a disability grade

이▲(55####-)

Central 10-ro 6,301, Kimcheon-si (Pungdong)

Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Burro 2-ro 8 (Yongpo-dong 2 A)

Workers’ welfare in general financial buildings in 2195, as the service place in Daegu, Jung-gu.

Corporation's Daegu Regional Headquarters

Representative Lee Jae-chul

Litigation Performers Lee Dol-ri

April 4, 2014

May 30, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 23, 2012, the defendant revoked the decision of disability grade against the plaintiff on July 23, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 22, 2005, 08:20 on October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff suffered from an on-site strong pipe pipe and a disaster covering the Plaintiff due to a fluorial storm (hereinafter “the disaster in this case”) and received medical treatment until July 28, 2006 after obtaining approval from the Defendant as an occupational accident for the instant injury and disease by the Defendant.

B. On August 7, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a written claim for compensation for disability to the Defendant. On August 29, 2006, the Defendant, after examining the Plaintiff’s disability status, rendered a disposition of grade 2 subparagraph 2 (a person whose eyesight of two snow is below 0.02 respectively) aggravated the Plaintiff’s disability grade (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

C. After that, the Defendant reviewed the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 2 on July 23, 2012 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s false information that the Plaintiff received class No. 2 of the disability grade, and changed the Plaintiff’s disability grade to class No. 1 (i.e., a person whose inner eye and the eyesight of the other eye is 0.6 or less) on July 23, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and decided to collect unjust enrichment on the part for which the period of extinctive prescription has not elapsed among the insurance benefits received by the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and evidence 7 (including the provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is in a state of complete real name without luminous angle due to the instant disaster, and even the right eye of the existing disability was in a state of safety water movement (such as to know that he was salvable in the front of the snow) at the time of the instant previous disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person whose inner eye is real name and the eyesight of the other eye is less than 0.02, and whose degree of vision of the other eye is less than 0.02.”

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In around 1975, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol, has been working as a course of making a fry house in the construction site by using the left eye while breathing assault with others.

2) The Plaintiff received hospital hospitalization from October 22, 2005 to November 30, 2005 due to the instant disaster. From November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff received the treatment from Kimcheon Medical Center from November 30, 2005. According to the medical record records of Kimcheon Medical Center, the following is confirmed, and the Plaintiff was able to pass a mountain with the help of her her frien or her frien with the help of her her fris, even after the previous disposition of this case.

As a result of the measurement of eyesight conducted on July 6, 2006: 0.1-0.15 of the visual proof of the right eye, 0.1-0.15 of the visual proof of the right eye, 0.5 of the left snow safety Dong, and the eye room

○ On June 2, 2008: The snow on the right side and the snow on the right right side per week are difficult.

○ On March 10, 2011: snow that appears to the right;

3) Plaintiff’s opinion

○ Certificate of Disability on August 1, 2006 (Gecheon Medical Center)

- In the case of a patient suffering from an existing disability in the eromatic wound at the time of wound, the physical condition of the body in the erogate has occurred due to this injury, and the third cerebral Malila, and the real name of the erogate is de facto. The both sides need to assist daily life of not more than 0.02. The response of the opinion of the doctor on August 11, 2006 (Gimcheon Medical Center).

- Scopic handicap: the left-hand (new), the safe manual, the right-hand (existing) manual;

○ Medical Certificate of November 18, 2010 (Gecheon Medical Center)

- The preservation treatment and progress observation from November 30, 2005 from 1999 to 0.02 of visual disorder 1, which constitute a 0.02 visual disorder, and there are many inconvenience in daily life.

4) Opinion on physical examination (the movable property and medical personnel of the Korean National University), the Plaintiff’s current correctional history

- Spices: 10cm of safety balance, 0.02 of corrections, and 0.02 of: Full real names;

○ At the time of the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s disaster, the correction trial records

- Since the correction time of the Kimcheon Medical Center on July 6, 2006 stated 0.1-0.15 in the medical record of the Kimcheon Medical Center on the medical record of 0.1 to 0.15, it is presumed that the above time of the

(1) The Plaintiff’s correction trial records as of the closing date of medical care.

- Until July 28, 2006, which was after July 6, 2006, the date of the completion of the medical care, there was no additional statement of change in the agenda. As such, the Plaintiff’s correction vision at the time of the date of the completion of the medical care is presumed to be at least 0.1.

The plaintiff's right eye had an existing disease of infection and reflective dystrophism due to external wounds in the past, and the eyesight was additionally deteriorated due to each deadly skin that occurred around July 9, 2010, and the state of safety balance due to the aggravation of each dead body and mixed.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8, 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), the result of physical appraisal commissioned to the Director of the Korea Lifelong and Medical Center, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

As seen above, if the Plaintiff’s correction vision does not exceed 0.1, the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 1 of class A, but if the Plaintiff’s correction vision exceeds 0.6, the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under subparagraph 1 of class A. If the Plaintiff’s correction vision falls under the Plaintiff’s disability grade. Examining whether the Plaintiff’s correction vision at the time of completion of medical care, which serves as the basis for disability grade in the instant case, is certain degree of the Plaintiff’s correction vision, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s medical records revealed by the above recognized facts and evidence, i.e.,, the Plaintiff’s correction vision was measured as 0.1 to 15, which was the date immediately before the date of completion of medical care in the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s correction vision is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s correction vision based on the Plaintiff’s accurate correction vision beyond 0.15, rather than 0.1, and the Plaintiff’s opinion that it was difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s correction vision by up to 20101.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Park Jong-young