1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition to Paragraph 2 below of the judgment of the plaintiff as to the assertion that the plaintiff would repurchase at the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's argument on the plaintiff's argument that in the trial of the trial, Article 52 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "the temporary disability compensation benefit is paid to a worker who suffers from an injury or a disease for a period for which he/she could not be employed as a medical care due to an occupational reason," and whether there was business income is not a requirement. According to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is recognized that the plaintiff could not be employed as an individual taxi transport business at the time, and thus, the temporary disability compensation benefits should be paid. Even if not, considering the fact that the plaintiff was unable to receive proper medical care due to the defendant's wrongful additional injury or disease, even if he/she did not receive proper medical care due to the defendant's wrongful additional injury or disease, the part of temporary disability compensation benefit

The term "period during which an employee could not have been employed due to medical care" among the requirements for the payment of temporary layoff benefits under Article 52 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means the period during which the employee could not have been employed due to medical care due to occupational injury or disease. In light of the purpose of the system to guarantee the minimum living of the employee who could not work due to injury or disease and his/her family members, if the employee was employed by himself/herself through medical care, even if he/she was an employee under medical care due to injury or disease, he/she shall be deemed to fall under "period during which he/she could not have been employed due to medical care."