1. The Defendant’s decision on collection of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2015 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 27, 1998, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as divers damage, salvout damage, 4-5 troke, and 4-5 galleical damage, and received medical care from the Defendant until March 17, 2006 upon obtaining medical care approval from the Defendant, in response to an accident that leads to the removal of head and trees from the construction site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On March 17, 2006, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s disability grade constituted “a person who has a significant disability in the function or mental function of the neurosis and is obliged to always attend school (hereinafter “the first disability grade determination”); and (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid disability benefits and nursing benefits from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2015.

C. In around 2015, the Defendant re-examineed whether the Plaintiff’s disability grade was appropriate at the time of the first determination of the disability grade and the medical records and medical records after the determination of the first disability grade. At the time of the first determination of the disability grade, the Defendant decided to ex officio revoke the Plaintiff’s disability grade ex officio on May 15, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under “a person who is not able to have a significant obstacle to the function or mental function of the nursing system,” and on the other hand, re-determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade as class 5 class 8 (hereinafter “re-determination disposition of this case”) and collect the Plaintiff’s disability benefits and nursing benefits that had already been paid pursuant to Article 84 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act for the extent that three years have not elapsed (hereinafter “collection disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s re-determination disposition of this case has the nature of revoking beneficial administrative acts. The Plaintiff’s re-determination of this case was pre-determined after receiving the first disability grade around March 2006.