logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.12.30 2015구단56369
장해등급결정처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade that the Plaintiff rendered on January 2, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an employee of B, provided medical treatment to the Defendant on November 30, 2014 upon obtaining approval for medical treatment under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and claimed disability benefits from the Defendant on December 5, 2014.

B. On January 2, 2015, the Defendant adjusted the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 9 subparag. 15 and the disability grade No. 11 subparag. 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to determine the Plaintiff’s disability as class No. 8, which is “persons whose work remains limited to considerable degree of harm to the function or mental function of the psychosis,” and “persons who are remaining with disability in chest long-term function.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review to the Defendant, but was dismissed on May 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 7, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff could not have been able to be easily affected by major depression disorder caused by the approved injury of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's disability grade falls under class 4 of class 7, "persons who cannot be able to be affected by the function or mental function of the neurosis" and the plaintiff's disability grade falls under class 6 if the disability of class 11 of class 11 for the chest long-term function of the chest long-term is adjusted.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff received crypology and human crypology surgery at C Hospital on August 2008 due to the instant approved injury and disease. On May 7, 2010, the Plaintiff received crypology and crypology surgery at D Hospital. 2) Medical opinions: The Plaintiff was receiving treatment due to bryp and crypology (D hospital): 2,3 times per month due to ple and sypology and sypology, etc., and it was predicted that the U.S. neypology had no obvious treatment method.

arrow