The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

In April 18, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition to pay temporary layoff benefits to the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following contents, and thus, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 1 to 15 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article

▣ 제1심판결서 2쪽 13행 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

D. On July 18, 2007, the Plaintiff was receiving a diagnosis of the instant additional injury and disease under the supervision of the first approved injury and disease at B Hospital on July 18, 2007. The Plaintiff’s director of B Hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff needs medical treatment and rehabilitation exercise treatment for a period of three weeks after the surgery. E. The Plaintiff’s director of B Hospital completed the first approved injury and disease treatment of the instant additional injury and disease on April 7, 2008.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The party's assertion and key issue 1) The plaintiff asserted that "it was against the disposition of this case that the defendant decided not to pay temporary disability compensation benefits to the plaintiff until the time when the additional disease of this case was recognized through administrative litigation, because the plaintiff received medical care at the hospital and his own home until the time when the additional disease of this case was recognized, and thus could not be engaged in business during the period of request of this case (from April 8, 2008 to March 25, 2013)." Accordingly, the defendant asserted that "the additional disease of this case was confirmed to the extent that the plaintiff could not have been employed during the period of initial medical care until April 7, 2008, because the additional disease of this case was not actually a medical care to the extent that the plaintiff could not have been employed during the period of request of this case, the plaintiff was not entitled to temporary disability compensation benefits, and thus, the issue of this case is as follows: