1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added a judgment on the argument at the trial of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial are not significantly different from the allegations in the trial of the first instance, and even if all the evidence submitted in the trial and the trial of the first instance are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court are justifiable). Even if the Defendant’s assertion was made in addition, even if there was an objective de facto disability that could not expect the Plaintiff to exercise his right, or the Plaintiff granted the same trust that would not invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription may be avoided only when the de facto disability is terminated or when the same trust was granted that would not invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription (six months).

However, even in the case of disability benefits for noise in distress, it shall be deemed that the de facto disability was eliminated and the exercise of the right was possible when the Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374 Decided September 4, 2014, stating that the extinctive prescription will run from the time when the symptoms are fixed to the same level as other wound branches. However, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits only after June 10, 2015 when nine months have passed since the date of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription cannot be viewed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

Judgment

The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence presented prior to the above facts and the following circumstances revealed by this court, i.e., the Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374 Decided September 4, 2014 regarding external binding force of the previous provisions of this case, differs from the exercise of the right to claim disability benefits without delegation by statutes.