Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

September 24, 2004

Daegu District Court Decision 2003Guhap878 Delivered on July 2, 2004

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's decision of disability grade against the plaintiff on July 15, 2003 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment below is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 5 through 9, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, and 2-2, and the purport of Gap evidence 4 as a whole.

A. On April 9, 2002, the Plaintiff became a member of, and worked as, a simple labor company, and around 16:00 on October 7, 2002, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of “inwards” due to an occupational accident on the wind that prices the Plaintiff’s face while moving to, a pipe in order to perform pipeline work at the construction site of the Sejong-gu Office located in 54-2, Mapo-dong, Mapo-dong, Mapo-dong, Mapo-gu, Mapo-dong, in order to perform pipeline work.

B. The Plaintiff received the medical care approval from the Defendant and completed the medical care on May 19, 2003. The Plaintiff claimed compensation for disability to the Defendant on the same day as in the same day as in the case where 3cm between the upper margin of the line and the both sides of the instant accident remains.

C. Accordingly, on July 15, 2003, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff’s disability grade under Article 31(1) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 12] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1797 of May 7, 2003; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree before amendment”), on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability state remains in the Plaintiff’s face with a chest of not less than 5cm in length, and thus constitutes “a man who remains in the outer appearance,” and thus, constitutes “a man who remains in the outer appearance.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

With respect to the defendant's assertion that the disposition in this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the related Acts and subordinate statutes, the plaintiff must make the disposition based on the laws and facts at the time of the disposition in the case of the administrative agency's application, and since the physical disability grade No. 12 No. 13 of the Enforcement Decree before the amendment (the male who remains with a significantly scarcity in the mother) is unconstitutional for discrimination based on gender without reasonable grounds, the defendant's disposition in this case is unlawful since the defendant's physical disability grade No. 12 of the Enforcement Decree before the amendment of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), with respect to the plaintiff's disability remaining at the time of the completion of treatment on May 19, 2003 after the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree, when the determination of disability grade on July 15, 2003 is made, it shall be determined as Grade 7 No. 12 of the disability grade corresponding to the "persons with a remarkably scar in the mother."

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As seen in the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, in a case where the person suffering from occupational accident left with the appearance of the person, according to the former Enforcement Decree before the amendment, a male is determined by grade 12 subparag. 13, and a female is determined by grade 7 subparag. 12, but according to the Enforcement Decree of the amended on May 7, 2003, both men and women are determined by grade 7 subparag. 12. However, according to the above facts, when the plaintiff's treatment is completed and it is confirmed that the remaining disability is determined by the plaintiff's treatment, May 19, 200 and July 15, 2003 when the defendant issued the instant disposition upon the plaintiff's claim for disability compensation, the above revised Enforcement Decree provides that the above disability grade is implemented from July 1, 2003 without any special transitional provision as to the disability for which the previous medical treatment is completed.

B. The Supreme Court Decision 200Du4464 delivered on October 25, 2002, which held that an administrative disposition is lawful should be determined on the basis of the law and fact-finding at the time of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4464 delivered on October 25, 2002). In principle, an administrative disposition is governed by the amended Act, which was enforced at the time of the disposition, unless otherwise provided in the transitional provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du274 delivered on October 12, 2001, etc.). Meanwhile, the effect of the Act is, in principle, effective only toward the future from the enforcement date, and it shall not be applied retroactively to the previous established facts. However, the principle of non-payment is intended to protect legal stability or trust of individuals, and if the amended Act and subordinate statutes are not related to the protection of individual status or are beneficial to the protection of individual status, it shall be retroactively

In this case, in light of the fact that the amended Enforcement Decree aims to promote the improvement of people's lives by eliminating unreasonable discrimination between men and women with respect to the payment of disability benefits for the chest disability of the mother and thereby promoting the promotion of workers' welfare through this, and that the amended Enforcement Decree does not infringe upon the interests of the general public or individuals pursuant to the previous Acts and subordinate statutes, the amended Enforcement Decree shall apply retroactively to the above disability of the plaintiff, which was finalized on May 19, 2003, prior to the amendment. Thus, the plaintiff's disability grade should be determined by Grade 7, subparagraph 12 of the amended Enforcement Decree, which corresponds to the "persons with a significant chest in appearance" under the amended Enforcement Decree.

The Defendant’s disposition that determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 12 No. 13 by applying the Enforcement Decree before the amendment is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Male-gu (Presiding Judge)