logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.15 2014누306
장해급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that Article 2-(c) is entirely dismissed among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judgment

According to Article 57(1) and (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, disability benefits are paid in cases where a worker suffers from a physical disability after recovering from an injury or disease caused by reason of his/her duties, and the defendant pays disability compensation annuities or lump-sum disability compensation benefits prescribed in [Attachment Table 6] of Article 57(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to a worker with the same disability according to the disability grade criteria prescribed in Article 53(1) [Attachment Table 6]

In full view of these relevant provisions, the reason for the payment of disability benefits arises when the treatment for an injury or disease occurred to a worker due to his/her occupational reason, but even if he/she is a worker entitled to disability benefits, he/she does not obtain specific right to receive disability benefits to the defendant, but only when the defendant makes a decision on the existence and grade of disability according to the worker's request for disability benefits, the defendant's specific right to claim disability benefits arises.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du12091 Decided February 1, 2008). The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case refusing payment of disability benefits which was not paid to the deceased D, by asserting that the deceased D caused pneumoconiosis due to occupational reasons and the symptoms were fixed before the death of the deceased, falls under class 16 among disability grades stipulated in the above [Attachment Table 6], is unlawful.

However, after the treatment of pneumoconiosis was completed by the defendant, whether the defendant left a disability to the net D, or there is a disability.

arrow