1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,984,432 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 30, 2016 to April 24, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was enrolled in B high school around 2014, and the Defendant is a corporation established pursuant to Article 15 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter “School Safety Act”), which is a school safety mutual aid business entity to which the head of B high school was enrolled.

나. 원고는 2014. 8. 18. 15:20경 기계체조 전공수업 도중 뜀틀을 하다가 중심을 잃고 넘어지면서 허리를 다치는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)를 당하였고, 이로 인하여 '요추 5번, 천추 1번 척추 압박골절‘ 등의 상해를 입고 수술과 치료를 받았다.

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for deduction benefits with the Defendant regarding the instant accident, but the Defendant partially recognized the medical care benefits and paid KRW 2,577,640, and refused payment on the ground that disability benefits do not fall under the subject of payment.

on April 3, 2015, the doctor C of the Gangwon-do National University Hospital was measured at 28% of the pressure rate of No. 5 in the summary and at 10% in the subsequent 2015. The list of the disability classification for life injury, unification

6. The above disability falls under the category of spine-6). The above disability issued a written diagnosis of residual disability with the content that “the symptoms permanently shown.” E. P. Medical Doctor D of the Seoul Atol University: with respect to the commission of physical assessment by this Court, “10.2 degrees for the Plaintiff’s 10.2 degrees for the radiation test conducted on February 1, 2017, and pressure rate is 21.6%. This is limited to “attached Table 2” of Article 16(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act (hereinafter “Attachment 2”).

(3) Article 11 subparag. 5 of the 111 provides that “If the sum total of 20% of the labor force has become complete after the framework, the 20% of the labor force shall be deemed to have been lost,” and the fact-finding by this court shall again be conducted by reference to the fact-finding of this court: “In case of the sum total of the whole frameworks after the framework, it shall be rarely fixed, but any change may be made for various reasons. It shall be deemed reasonable to permanently make a determination; and at the time of applying mutatis mutandis 1-A-1-d of