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. The Plaintiff was judged by the Defendant that the disability grade 10 No. 8 was 10% of the disability grade with respect to “after the repair of equipment between 12 and 1-2-3” due to occupational accidents in 1988.
(hereinafter referred to as "existing Injury and Disease"). (b)
After that, on July 2, 2018, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident going beyond the bridge and going beyond the floor while going up on a sloping bridge with about 4.5 meters high in order to replace electric lights at the workplace (hereinafter “instant accident”).
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant suffered pressure from each pressure in the chests No. 11 and 12 due to the instant accident, and applied for approval of the medical care to the Defendant. The Defendant, among them, approved the medical care for “the pressure frame and closed” No. 11, and rendered a disposition not to approve the medical care for the pressure frame No. 12, and thereafter, the Plaintiff provided the medical care until December 16, 2018 for the injury and disease for which the medical care was approved, and then claimed for disability benefits to the Defendant on January 17, 2019.
C. As to this, the Defendant determined that “The pressure rate of spine shall be calculated by the rate of average length of spine under the above immediately below 11 in spine chain 11. However, as the Plaintiff’s body was damaged, one of the compared spine body No. 12, excluding this, the pressure rate of No. 11 in chrone No. 13.92% measured at 13.92%, and it constitutes class 13 subparag. 12, which is “the person who suffers from salvinant disorder in spine.” In full view of the existing injury (functional disorder) under class 10 subparag. 8 of the disability grade, it constitutes the remaining disability and the function of the conjecte, which are different exercise units from each other, and thus, the disability grade is applied mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff’s disability grade by raising 10th class by 198 by using the adjustment method for the disability grade by physical unit.”