logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.10.21 2015구단57713
장해급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of additional payment of disability benefits against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 21, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained approval for medical care from the Defendant regarding “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

B. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits by asserting that he was under a long-term medical care for about six years to the Defendant, but was fixed without a patient’s symptoms. However, on July 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the payment of disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s condition of wearing a human smoking machine or the condition of being treated for an existing disease is determined to require continuous treatment, and thus, it is deemed that the treatment is needed.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had obtained the approval of the medical care of the instant injury and disease for a long period of not less than six years, but had been in a fixed state without the face of symptoms. In full view of all circumstances such as the treatment period and progress, characteristics of the disease, etc., the current level of medical care should be deemed to have been cured by being merely a continuous transitional observation for the prevention of the merger certificate and the aggravation thereof, not a positive treatment for the improvement of symptoms, but merely a preserved treatment for the prevention of the merger certificate and the control of artificial smoking.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Article 57(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “The disability benefits shall be paid to an employee in the event that the employee suffers from an injury or disease due to an occupational reason and has a physical disability, etc. after recovering from the injury or disease.” Article 5(4) of the same Act provides that “The healing benefits refer to completely recovering from the injury or disease, or the treatment of which is no longer expected, and the symptoms thereof are fixed.” Article 57(1) of the same Act including the same Act.

arrow