Plaintiff (Attorney Hong New-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

March 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s decision on May 4, 2010 on the starting date of the disability compensation annuity against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1-8 and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. On July 25, 1982, when the Plaintiff worked as a maintenance engineer for the state-designated senior company, the Plaintiff was under the influence of the driver's waiting room at around 12:30 on July 25, 1982, and the other worker was under the diagnosis of the Plaintiff's bridge, and was under the diagnosis of the Plaintiff's bridge, and the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of the Plaintiff's slide and the nearby primary infection, and was under the treatment of the slide of the head of the state-owned senior department at the place other than the place where the Plaintiff was under the influence of the Plaintiff

B. However, even after treatment, the Plaintiff continued to provide pains on the right upper part and the slot pipe, and was diagnosed on December 26, 1983 by each side at the △△ University Hospital, △△ University Hospital on December 26, 1983. On January 6, 1984, the Plaintiff was subject to a spaculmatization of the mission, the right upper part of which is the right upper part, at the same hospital on January 6, 1984, and was discharged on February 4, 1984, and was treated until March 1984.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on October 14, 1985, and obtained approval from the Defendant on June 3, 1992, for the reason of the paralysis of the mission, which is a high-speed pipe, the right side of which was approved by the Defendant on December 1, 1992.

D. On December 3, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained approval of additional medical care by September 30, 2003 on the ground of the completion and paralysis of the mission, which is a high right part of the Defendant’s right line, and again received re-re-delivery of the human mission. On October 10, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits to the Defendant.

E. Accordingly, on October 23, 2003, the Defendant fell under class 7 of the Plaintiff’s right-hand bridge, but the period of three years has elapsed since the completion of treatment, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disability benefit site payment. However, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Plaintiff’s failure judgment on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefit became extinct due to the statute of limitations. The judgment on the Plaintiff’s failure was finalized on April 13, 2006, following the Busan High Court Decision 2005Nu2131 and the judgment on the dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1876, Supreme Court Decision 2006.

F. On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff received medical care and applied for disability benefits to the Defendant by November 5, 2007 on the ground that re-explosion is necessary due to the reduction of the right angle and the right angle from the Defendant. On November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff received a disposition to pay disability benefits on the ground that there is no previous disability and change.

G. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for re-medical care and completed re-medical care on April 14, 2010 and applied for disability benefits to the Defendant on April 23, 2010 after concluding medical treatment on April 23, 2010.

H. On May 4, 2010, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that, with respect to the Plaintiff, the disability grade of the Plaintiff’s left-hand bridge falls under class 7, and if the disability grade of the Plaintiff’s right-hand bridge falls under class 8 class 7 and class 7 of the existing right-hand bridge, the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under class 6. However, pursuant to Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Defendant paid disability compensation annuity as the number of days of lump sum disability compensation for the disability grade No. 8 class 7 of the existing right-hand bridge extinguished by prescription, and paid disability compensation annuity corresponding to class 6 from May 7, 2013.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits for the right-hand bridge’s disability has already expired and there is no obligation for the Defendant to pay the disability benefits due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription, and thus, if the disability is adjusted upward due to additional medical care and the disability compensation annuity is paid, it shall be considered as lump sum payment for disability compensation for the right-hand bridge’s disability.

(2) On this basis, the Plaintiff asserts that Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act prevents dual payment, and that the Plaintiff did not actually receive disability benefits for the existing disability, and that the Defendant’s disposition that decided to pay the disability compensation annuity as the number of days is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Disability benefits, in principle, can be paid when a worker completely recovers from a occupational injury or disease, that is, when the worker completely recovers from a occupational injury or disease, or when the treatment of an injury or disease is no longer expected, and symptoms thereof are fixed. Thus, the worker shall obtain a right to claim disability benefits (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du14977, Apr. 29, 2005; 2004Du12957, Feb. 22, 2007).

Furthermore, when the symptoms are fixed after the completion of medical care due to the completion of medical care, there is only a claim for disability benefits against the difference with the previously received disability benefits if the grade of disability is adjusted upward (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11001, Nov. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15268, Nov. 21, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15268, Apr. 21, 199); in a case where there is no room for a raise in the disability grade because the fixed symptoms after the completion of medical care have become worse than the previous symptoms, there is no separate claim for disability benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1876, Apr. 13, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu2131, Nov. 11, 2005).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, in a case where medical treatment for additional medical care is completed and the grade of disability is adjusted upward, the right to claim disability benefits, regardless of whether the previous disability benefits occurred at the time when the symptoms were determined due to the completion of the previous medical care, shall be limited to the difference with the previous disability benefits. However, if the previous disability benefits were not compensated at all after the aggravation of the disability grade after additional medical care and the previous disability benefits were claimed for disability benefits according to the higher disability grade after the aggravation of the disability grade after additional medical care, unless there are any special circumstances, the disability benefits according to the existing disability grade shall not be deducted (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du13057, Sept. 25, 2008; 2007Nu32466, Jul. 8, 2008; 2007Nu324666, etc.). If the previous disability benefits claim for disability benefits had already been determined after additional medical care had already been extinguished and thus, the symptoms of disability benefits had not been determined after completion.

Therefore, Article 58 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides for the calculation and payment method of disability benefits in order to prevent dual payment in cases where a person who has already received disability benefits worsens after additional medical care, can be applied as it is even if the existing right to claim disability benefits has expired by prescription. Such interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent of Article 112 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides for the three-year extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as well as the legislative intent of Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Accordingly, as such opinion, the defendant's disposition from May 1, 2010 to 1,102 [495 days (the number of days of lump-sum disability compensation benefits: the date of payment of disability compensation benefits for class 8 of the existing disability grade) / 164 (the number of days newly determined after treatment on April 14, 2010) / 1630 days (the plaintiff's claim is legitimate for disability disability compensation annuity excluding the case No.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-ho