logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.08.20 2014구합71498
장해등급 재심의 결정 및 부당이득금 징수결정 처분 취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s decision on collection of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff on October 8, 2014 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On January 19, 2004, while working at a scholarship construction company, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as a light-one-one-half of the left-hand fluor, the left-hand fluor, the left-hand fluor, etc., and obtained medical care approval from the Defendant.

On March 22, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed on March 2, 2005, that the Plaintiff’s disability grade 3 subparag. 3 (a person who is not able to engage in labor for the remaining life with a significant obstacle to the function or mental function of the neurosis); (b) determined the Plaintiff’s final disability grade as Class II (hereinafter “the first disability grade determination”); and accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid disability compensation annuity corresponding to Grades 3 through 2, 205, on April 1, 2005.

As a result of re-examination of whether the Plaintiff’s disability grade was appropriate at the time of the first determination of the disability grade and after the medical records and medical records in around 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s disability status at the time of the first determination of the disability grade falls under class 15 of class 9 of the disability grade (a person whose work remains considerably limited to his/her mental function and mental function) and (b) class 10 of class 12 of the disability grade of the left-hand bridge (a person who suffers from an obstacle to one part of class 1 of class 12 of the disability grade of the 12 disability grade (the third part of the bridge), and subsequently revoked ex officio revocation of the first determination of the Plaintiff’s final disability grade on October 8, 2014, based on Article 84 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “re-determination of this case”); and (c) rendered a decision of unjust enrichment of KRW 268,210,00.

On December 19, 2014, the Defendant’s extinctive prescription shall be the amount of unjust enrichment as of the date of the instant disposition.

arrow