1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 1978, the Plaintiff received medical care until September 20, 1978, for an occupational accident (hereinafter “the injury of this case”) from the Defendant as a person whose eyesight of one eye of grade 10 No. 10 is below 0.1.

B. On January 31, 2014, the Plaintiff approved additional medical care by the Defendant, and completed medical care on February 1, 2014, such as receiving an surgery for the surgery at the Maternia Hospital, and filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on September 4, 2015.

C. However, on September 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the payment of disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was in the safe operation state equivalent to the real name from around 2008 (the Plaintiff was in the real name of one eye or one eye of less than 0.02); however, the final disability state after the completion of additional medical care cannot be deemed to have been more serious than the existing disability as a luminous state (Class 1).”

The Plaintiff filed a petition for examination against the instant disposition. On February 29, 2016, the Defendant dismissed the petition for examination on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits under the real name of the opposite party has expired.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits is that the symptoms are fixed after the completion of additional medical care, and the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits has not been completed by extinctive prescription.

Even if the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits has expired, the defendant approved additional medical care by recognizing that "the effect of treatment can be expected due to additional medical care," and this constitutes "the case where there was an objective disability for the creditor to exercise his/her right."