beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 20, 2002, the Plaintiff, as a worker B’s employee, was receiving medical care until January 31, 2015 due to an occupational accident, “electric 3 through 30% (nive side, left-hand side, left-hand side) of the image 3 through 30% (nive side, left-hand side, left-hand side), cut off on the right-hand side, diveropic disease, fluoral fluoral damage, neutal personality protection, and neutronic personality donation.”
B. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for a second grade nursing fee for the period of “from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015,” and the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay the third grade nursing fee on June 8, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff falls short of class 2 to the Plaintiff. (c) The Plaintiff filed a request for examination. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination, and the Defendant, on August 21, 2015, revoked the payment of the third class nursing fee for the period of request for nursing fee “from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015” on the ground that the Defendant is obliged to pay the second class nursing fee for the period of request for nursing fee. D.
Accordingly, on August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a claim for medical care expenses demanding the settlement of the difference between the legitimate nursing fees and the actual nursing fees even during the period from April 20, 2002 to December 31, 2014.
However, on November 2, 2015, the Defendant paid only the difference between nursing charges from June 5, 2012 to December 31, 2014 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the extinctive prescription has expired for the part regarding the difference between nursing charges from April 20, 202 to June 4, 2012.
(hereinafter) From April 20, 202 to June 4, 2012, the part concerning the difference in the nursing fees is referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition - the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion should have been paid nursing fees based on the nursing nursing and nursing class 2 during the period from April 20, 2002 to June 4, 2012, the Defendant should have been paid from April 20, 2002 to June 30, 2009, which was before the amended law on the payment standards for nursing fees was applied.