logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2021.01.15 2020구합21563
장애정도결정처분취소
Text

The disposition that the defendant rendered on March 10, 2020 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry as stated in Gap evidence No. 1-1-2, evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-2.

A. On March 18, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as a fall accident, while employed as a part of a daily watch, and working at the site of the construction of Bag Construction at the construction site of Bag Construction, and sustained bodily injury.

B. The Plaintiff was recognized as falling under class 15 of class 9 (persons whose labor service remains limited to a considerable degree due to the function or mental function of the neurotic system) under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Insurance for Industrial Accident Compensation due to the said accident, and received a lump-sum payment of disability benefits from the Labor Welfare Corporation.

(c)

On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to examine whether he/she constitutes a brain-dead disabled person under the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act for the registration of disabled persons. On November 7, 2019, the Defendant was determined as having failed to meet the level of disability, and the Plaintiff filed an objection on November 14, 2019, but the Defendant notified the same content on December 12, 2019.

(d)

On December 23, 2019, the plaintiff again requested the defendant to examine the same content with the same disability. However, on January 30, 2020, the defendant was judged to have failed to meet the disability level, and the plaintiff was found to have reached a high level on February 6, 2020, and the defendant, on March 10, 2020, issued a notice on the plaintiff on March 10, 2020 that "the defendant was determined to have failed to meet the disability level because it is not recognized to have affected the function to the extent that it falls under the criteria for determining the degree of disability of brain diseases" (hereinafter the notice of this case is issued on February 2, 201).

arrow