1. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant’s non-approval of the correction of average wages and disposition of the claim for the difference in insurance benefits against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2014, while working as an employee belonging to Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was diagnosed as being damaged by the water tunnel escape certificate No. 6-7, Dec. 20, 2014, and Jan. 27, 2015, near the left side by hand, the water tunnel fall short of the water tunnel fall short of the back, the right shoulder fall short of the back, the right shoulder fall short of the collision, the right shoulder fall short of the right shoulder, and the right shoulder fall short of the order and the net damage.

B. On May 11, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care on the grounds of the above injury and the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation (hereinafter “prior administrative litigation”) against the foregoing defect, and on September 1, 2016, the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, which recognized the Plaintiff’s occupational accident as part of the Plaintiff’s occupational accident, as to the remainder of the injury and disease (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

(Ulsan District Court 2015Guhap5713) The above judgment became final and conclusive on the 23th of the same month.

C. Meanwhile, on May 31, 2016, when the administrative litigation of the front line was in progress, the Plaintiff retired from office in Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

According to the result of the prior administrative litigation, the defendant's decision on approval for partial medical care was defective, and the plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care and temporary layoff benefits with the defendant on October 24, 2016.

The Defendant paid temporary layoff benefits from October 1, 2016 to December 23 of the same year, which is the approval period for the additional medical care, on the ground that there was no wage subject to the calculation of average wages, due to the failure of the Plaintiff at the time of the additional medical care, on the ground that there was no wage subject to the calculation of average wages.

E. On January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the average wage of temporary layoff benefits should be calculated on the basis of December 17, 2014, which can be deemed as the first injury or disease in the instant case occurred, and submitted an application for rectification of average wages and a written claim for the difference in insurance benefits. However, the Defendant, on December 17, 2017, filed an application for rectification of average wages with no approval, and made a disposition of paying the difference in the insurance benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).