A case of determining a disability grade through adjustment and application mutatis mutandis with respect to an aggravated disability;

The case holding that the disability grade shall be determined through adjustment and application of attached Table 2 of Article 31 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16871 of Jun. 27, 2000) which provides for the disability grade in consideration of the criteria in the physical disability grade table, in case where the second accident occurred, such as the finger, the second accident, and the second accident, and the second accident, such as the fall, the fall, the second accident, the fall, or the second accident, and the second disability, if the fall, the fall, the second accident, or the second disability, is lost or the second disability, or the degree of the loss of the physical function, has been damaged, in consideration of the labor ability or the degree of the loss of the bodily function, and the disability grade of the aggravated disability shall be determined by considering the criteria in the physical disability grade table.

Article 42(1) [Attachment 1] of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of December 31, 1999), Article 31(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16871 of June 27, 200), Article 40 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor of July 29, 200)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu1569 delivered on September 5, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The court below found the following facts: while the plaintiff was unable to properly carry out the finger finger by the first accident, the third and fourth fingers caused by the second accident were cut to include the lower court, and the lower court held that the lower court was the summary of the fact that the lower court was the fact that the lower court was able to carry out a new disability within the normal range, which is within the normal range, inasmuch as the lower court was the first accident, including the lower court’s second and fourth fingers, including the lower part. The lower part of the lower court held that the lower part of the lower court was lost including the lower part of the lower part of the lower part.

Furthermore, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that since there is no evidence that the second degree of disability or second degree of disability of the plaintiff's second degree of disability due to the second degree of disability or second degree of disability, it is not proper to distinguish the second degree of disability from that of the plaintiff's second degree of disability or that the second degree of disability of the plaintiff's second grade of disability or second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability (the second degree of disability of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability including that of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability or that of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability, it is not proper to distinguish the second degree of disability or that the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability including that of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability or that of the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability (the second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability and second grade of the second grade of the second grade of the disability).

The above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the increase, adjustment and application of disability grade.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)