1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), was subject to an accident where there was a strong pain on November 29, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”), while the Plaintiff had been performing the duty of handling heavy goods for a long time, and was using approximately 30 km away from the instant accident. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on May 23, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “instant medical care benefit application”), and the Defendant decided to pay the Plaintiff medical care benefits on May 23, 2013.

On May 27, 2015, the defendant, after investigating the insurance investigation department of the defendant, revoked the decision to pay the above medical care benefits to the plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence No. 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion had already been decided by the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee, the instant disposition revoking the above medical care benefit payment decision merely based on the witness C’s statement and improper pressure, is an unlawful disposition that contradicts the principle of trust protection and deviates from and abused discretion against the principle of proportionality.

B. Where there is a defect in an administrative act, the agency which made a judgment may cancel it by itself, even without any separate legal basis. However, when cancelling a beneficial administrative disposition, it may cancel it only when it is highly possible to justify the disadvantage of the party concerned due to the need of public interest, such as the necessity of public interest to cancel it, the protection of trust and the infringement of the stability of legal life, etc., and then when comparing it with the disadvantage of the party concerned. However, if the defect of the beneficial administrative disposition is due to the party concerned's act of application by concealment or other fraudulent methods, the party concerned is aware that the profit from the disposition was illegally acquired.