1. Upon a claim that was changed in exchange by this court, the Defendant made against the Plaintiff on July 24, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 1974 to April 9, 1984, the Plaintiff is a person who was under medical care in accordance with the above determination, and was judged as a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis around December 11, 1993, as a person who had been able to have worked for dusty work in the Daelim B&C Co., Ltd.

B. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits corresponding to class 13 of the Pneumoconiosis grade based on the type of pneumoconiosis and cardiopulmonary function at the time of determining the subject of pneumoconiosis as the subject of pneumoconiosis treatment. However, on March 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition on disability benefits site payment (hereinafter “previous disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the applicant was approved for medical care until April 30, 2016, and the applicant was confirmed to have failed to meet the criteria for disability benefits, which is the cause for disability benefits (it is confirmed that medical treatment cannot be expected, and the symptoms are not fixed, and thus does not meet the criteria for disability benefits).”

C. On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous disposition, and the first instance court rendered the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant revoked ex officio the previous disposition on July 24, 2017, and, on the ground that “If the right to receive insurance benefits under Article 112 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not exercised for three years, the extinctive prescription is complete if the right to receive the insurance benefits is not exercised for three years, and the applicant’s written claim for disability benefits was submitted on February 4, 2016, which was three years after December 11, 1993, and thus the extinctive prescription of the right to claim disability benefits has already expired (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 runs from the time when the rights occur objectively and the rights can be exercised.

The plaintiff's right to claim disability benefits must be decided by the defendant to pay disability benefits.