[1] The method of re-determination of a disability grade where additional medical care has been provided for a part of the same disability parts and other disability parts, where additional medical care has been provided for a part of the same disability parts and other disability parts

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap's disability grade was unlawful in the case where Gap filed a claim for disability benefits with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service divided Gap's left-hand disability into two obstacles of "the second part of the 3rd part of the 4th part of the 4th part" and "the cutting of the 4th part of the 4th part of the 4th part" under Article 53 (1) [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and after adjustment of each disability grade under Article 53 (1) [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Gap decided that Gap's disability grade falls under Grade 8 subparagraph 4 after completion of medical care for "the 3th part of the 3th part of the 4th part of the 4th part of the 4th part of the 8th part of the 196th part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 4th part of the 10th part of the 10th part of the 2.

[1] Where additional medical care has been provided for some of two or more of the other disabilities, a new disability grade shall be determined only for the disabilities that have been improved or aggravated compared with the previous one after receiving additional medical care, and then a final disability grade shall be determined by adjusting the disability grade before additional medical care for the non-additional disability and the disability grade pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. However, where the disability grade before additional medical care has been provided for a part of the same disability parts and the same disability parts, and where the disability grade is re-determined due to additional medical care, the disability grade before additional medical care was determined for the parts of the same disability parts and the whole disability parts, and thus, the disability grade should be re-determined for the parts of the disability parts and the whole disability parts, and the disability grade should not be determined as the disability grade after additional medical care has been adjusted.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which determined the disability grade No. 13 of Article 53 (1) [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269 of July 12, 2010), where Party A suffered an injury of the 2nd part of the 3nd part of the 4nd part of the 4nd part of the 4nd part of the 4nd part of the 4nd part of the 4nd part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 3nd part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 3nd part of the 4th part of the 4th part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 3nd part of the 1st part of the 3rd part of the 1st part of the 1st part of the 4th part of the 1st part.

[1] Article 60(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 53(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 60(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 53(1) [Attachment Table 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010); Article 53(2)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu45240 decided May 25, 201

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 60(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “If the state of disability becomes worse or worse after receiving additional medical care, the disability grade shall be determined again, and disability benefits shall be paid according to the disability grade corresponding to the improved or aggravated state of disability.” In light of the purport of the above provision, it is reasonable to view that the disability to be determined again is limited to “a disability which is improved or aggravated compared with the previous after receiving additional medical care.”

Therefore, if there are two or more different disabilities, if the additional medical care was provided only for some of them, the new disability grade should be determined only for the disability that has been improved or aggravated compared with the previous one after receiving the additional medical care, and then the final disability grade should be adjusted according to Article 53(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 53(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

However, in a case where a disability grade is re-determined due to additional medical care for a part of the same disability parts and that of the same disability parts, the disability grade before additional medical care was conducted for the entire disability parts and the entire disability parts, so it is necessary to re-determine the disability grade for the entire disability parts and the entire disability parts, and the disability grade should be re-determined only for a part of the disability subject to additional medical care, and the remaining disability grade is not determined as a disability grade after additional medical care, after maintaining the disability grade determined before additional medical care.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) determined that the Plaintiff was unable to receive additional medical care of Grade 1 and Grade 3 disability grade 2; (b) that the Plaintiff’s remaining-hand balance of 1 and Grade 3 were not subject to additional medical care of Grade 4; (c) that the Plaintiff’s remaining-hand balance of 1 and Grade 2 were not subject to additional medical care of Grade 3; (d) that the Plaintiff’s remaining-hand balance of 1 and Grade 3 were subject to additional medical care of Grade 4; and (e) that the Defendant’s remaining-hand balance of 1 and Grade 4 were subject to additional medical care of Grade 3; and (e) that the Defendant’s remaining-hand balance of 1 and Grade 2 were subject to additional medical care of Grade 3; and (e) that the Defendant’s remaining-hand balance of 3 were subject to additional medical care of Grade 4 and Grade 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to disability grade decision as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)