(영문) 대전고등법원 2011.11.23. 선고 2011누120 판결

A. 2. The court's explanation on the grounds of the disposition of this case 2. The plaintiff's assertion on the legitimacy of the disposition of this case b. The plaintiff's assertion c. related Acts and subordinate statutes b. (1) the " fact of recognition" (the second to fifth to nine (9) of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as the corresponding column among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written by the court. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Parts used for repair;

The second 13th 13th 175th 17th 13th 13th 17th 17th 17th 2th 2th 18-19th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 4th 5th 4th 5th 200, "No. 1 through 3, No. 4-1 and No. 5th 4th 4th 4th 17th 4th 4th 2008", "No. 24th 2008", "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee", "No. 9-10th 9th 9th 20 as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes."

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the first argument

In full view of all medical opinions on the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-hand hand-off status at the time of the determination of the above recognition, even though the Plaintiff’s disability grade should be determined by class 14 class 9, a person who could exercise the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-hand hand-off status was 175 degrees, and due to the remaining condition of the Tongdon, the Defendant would have determined the disability grade as class 12 class 6, a person who could perform the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand-hand hand-off status after calculating the scope of the Plaintiff’s physical hand-off status as 115 degree, which would hinder the Plaintiff’s physical hand-off function among the three parts of the three sections of the arms, and the remaining condition of Dongdon was the same.

As above, inasmuch as the Defendant erroneously determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade and paid excessive insurance benefits, the Defendant shall make a decision to collect the benefits erroneously paid pursuant to Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and even if the Plaintiff’s disability grade becomes worse after the Plaintiff’s determination of the instant disability grade and the exerciseable scope was limited to 90 degree, it is a separate issue for applying for disability benefits again according to the aggravated state of disability after additional medical care, and for such reason, it cannot be deemed that the determination of the disability grade of this case is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiff's first assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful because the determination of the disability grade of this case is legitimate is without merit.

B. Judgment on the second argument

Where there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency that has conducted an administrative act may revoke it by itself even without a separate legal basis. Provided, That when the disposition agency cancels a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it only when it is strong enough to justify the disadvantage that a party needs to suffer due to the need of the public interest, such as the protection of trust and the infringement of the stability of legal life, etc. after comparing and supplementing disadvantages suffered by the party concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006).

On the other hand, the instant disposition urged the Plaintiff to return the amount equivalent to the portion of disability benefits paid in error on the ground that the Defendant’s determination of the disability grade of this case was erroneous by mistake. This may be deemed to infringe on the Plaintiff’s trust and legal stability in the initial disposition. However, the Defendant is not only obligated to fairly compensate for occupational accidents in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes while managing insurance premiums collected from the business owner as an institution established to efficiently implement an industrial accident compensation insurance business, but also the Corporation should collect the amount equivalent to the amount of benefits if the insurance benefits were erroneously paid. Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that the Defendant shall, upon the decision to collect unjust enrichment, notify the person liable for payment of the amount without delay. In light of the foregoing, the Defendant’s determination of the disability grade of this case was made by mistake, or one year and seven months passed after such determination was made by the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was unlawful for the reason that the instant disposition was rendered by the Plaintiff to 2001.

Therefore, the plaintiff's second assertion that the disposition of this case was illegal in violation of the principle of trust protection is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.