1. On January 17, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to correct a disability grade and to decide on the collection of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 1990, the Plaintiff received medical care until June 25, 2008 using the pertinent conical signboard escape certificate with respect to an occupational accident, and was judged as class 6-5 on June 30, 2008.

B. On October 2, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained the recognition of additional neutronism; and (b) asserted that there was an obstacle to neutism due to neutronism due to neutronism; and (c) filed an application for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant application”); (d) but (e) did not participate in the disability examination; and (e) rejected the application for disability benefits on November 11, 201.

C. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for disability benefits for mine protection function again. On October 10, 2012, the Defendant recognized this part of disability benefits as class 11 9 and increased the final disability grade added to the existing disability grade (Grade 6 5) to class 5. The initial date of the extinctive prescription for disability benefits was October 2, 2008, which was the date on which additional injury was approved, and determined that the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the instant application before the elapse of three years from this, and paid the Plaintiff annual disability benefits corresponding to class 5.

Afterward, the Defendant found the fact that the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of disability with respect to the neutronic exposure on June 25, 2008, and rendered the instant disposition to collect 9,795,800 won (hereinafter “the instant difference”) equivalent to the difference between the pension amount of class 5 and the pension amount of class 6 out of the disability compensation annuity already paid after correcting the Plaintiff’s disability grade under class 6-5 on January 17, 2013, on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired since three years elapsed counting from the date of recovery (the date of recovery).

(E) In light of the fact that the Defendant stated in a written disposition that it was erroneous payment and determined to collect only the amount of unjust enrichment, the provision on the basis of the instant disposition seems to be Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and examined.