1. The Defendant’s decision to collect unjust enrichment of KRW 7,432,980 against the Plaintiff on October 21, 2009 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 4, 2007, the Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as light fluorum salt, left satum salt, right 2 balance heat, left satis, the left satum satis, the left satise satis, the left satise satis, the left satise satis satis, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability compensation with the Defendant on December 24, 200

(hereinafter “instant claim”). (b)

On March 208, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under class 6 of disability grade No. 12, the Plaintiff’s disability grade, “the person who remains injured by the function of one joint part of the three joints of one part of the three joints of one arms” (hereinafter “instant disability grade determination”), and paid the Plaintiff lump-sum disability compensation amounting to KRW 11,562,410 (hereinafter “instant benefit”).

C. However, on October 21, 2009, the Defendant decided to collect the difference of disability grade 7,432,980 won as unjust enrichment, and notified the Plaintiff thereof, on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s left-hand handout disability status falls under class 175 and falls under class 14 class 9, “the person who remains after the pathal symptoms” in the state where the pathic remains, and paid compensation for disability grade 12 class 6 by calculating the scope of movement at 115.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition, but was dismissed, again filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Committee, but was dismissed on June 24, 2010, and received a written decision on June 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Defendant’s decision to collect unjust enrichment is unlawful even if the Plaintiff’s right-hand completion falls under class 6 of class 12 merely because the scope of movement is 90 degrees.

(2) The determination of the instant disability grade was made by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff thereafter.