1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition to the written statement of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment, even if there was an objective disability that could not expect the creditor to exercise his right as above, if such disability is terminated, the obligor’s defense of extinctive prescription can be prevented only within a reasonable period from exercising his right.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201844 Decided December 12, 2013, etc.). As seen earlier, the previous provisions of this case were deleted by the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on March 28, 2016, after the external binding power was denied in the above Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374, and the previous provisions of this case were deleted by the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on March 28, 2016. The Plaintiff already claimed disability benefits against the injury and disease of this case against the Defendant around June 29, 2015, the previous provisions of this case had already been deleted, and thus, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right

On September 4, 2014, the above Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374 Decided that the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits against the injury and disease of this case can be said to have been annulled. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits against the injury and disease of this case cannot be deemed to have been made within a reasonable period after the lapse of six months thereafter.

However, there is no basis or material to deem that the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was immediately aware of the fact at that time and the cause for disability that could not exercise his/her rights was resolved, and further, the Defendant should reach the point of time of recovery from noise in January 14, 2016 after the said Supreme Court ruling was rendered.