beta
Text
1. The determination of a disability grade that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2015 is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 25, 2014, while working for a malicious accident insurance company (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”), the Plaintiff was receiving medical care benefits by October 31, 2015 after obtaining approval from the Defendant for an occupational accident on April 24, 2015.
B. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for temporary layoff benefits against the Defendant from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, which was currently in medical care benefits. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to partially pay temporary layoff benefits (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) only on the date the Plaintiff actually received medical care on the ground that the medical care was reasonable for employment.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits for the instant injury and disease after the completion of medical care, and the Defendant, on December 10, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s disability grade as “Grade 13 applicable mutatis mutandis,” on the ground that the right-hand end part of the terminal part remains and there is no other functional disorder.
(hereinafter “Disposition No. 2 of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] / 【No. 1, 11 through 14, 16, each entry in Gap’s Evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Disposition No. 1 of this case was made by the non-party company, and the non-party company was temporarily dismissed from office from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 according to the Plaintiff’s determination that the Plaintiff was unable to perform his/her duties. However, the term “period of non-employment due to medical care” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act includes not only the period of medical care provided at a medical institution, but also the period of time during which the Plaintiff was unable to receive wages because he/she was unable to receive medical care at his/her home. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s disposition No. 1 of this case excluding the date of medical care at home was unlawful).