207Gudan2177 Revocation of the revocation of the disposition to pay disability benefits.

A

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Q Q Q

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Y Chief Director

Litigation Performers, K

March 19, 2008

April 30, 2008

1. The defendant's disposition to pay disability benefits to the plaintiff on August 29, 2006 is revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 1998, the plaintiff was employed as a taxi engineer in X (M) located in Nam-gu, Busan, and was paid disability benefits on March 3, 2001 on the ground that the plaintiff was paid disability benefits falling under class 13 of class 12 on March 3, 2001 on the ground that he was hospitalized in P Hospital after being admitted to the above multi-face face and the above multi-faced heart health care from the defendant and was admitted to the medical care from the defendant.

B. Since the aggravation of the above injury and disease, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant on Nov. 28, 2002 for re-treatment on Mar. 17, 2003; on Jul. 4, 2003; on Jan. 29, 2004; on May 11, 2004; on May 3, 2005; on Mar. 28, 2006, after receiving treatment for each of the above-mentioned injury and disease, the Plaintiff was under treatment on Aug. 106, 200.

C. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits corresponding to class 7 Item 12 with the defendant, but on August 29, 2006, the defendant issued a disposition to pay disability benefits to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's disability status remains a "salking of not less than 5 cm on the upper part of ice so as to be more severe than the original disability status (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

D. On the other hand, at the time of completion of treatment on August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff’s condition constitutes “in the case where the appearance remains obvious ple in the appearance of 61cm in the upper margin (10cm in 3cm, 8cm in 3cm, 8cm in 2cm in 6cm, 6cm in 2cm, 3cm in 1cm in length).”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (the same as Eul evidence 1), Eul evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

Since the plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits after additional medical care, the law at the time of the claim should be applied. Since the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act stipulates that the "persons with a significant chest in the appearance of her mother is determined by the 7th grade No. 12, both men and women." Thus, the plaintiff's disability grade falls under class No. 7th class No. 12, the plaintiff's disposition of this case otherwise reported is unlawful, and even if the Enforcement Decree was revised as above, if the situation after the completion of additional medical care does not change with the first disability condition, the revised Enforcement Decree cannot be applied. Despite the plaintiff's additional medical care, since the current disability condition does not change with the disability condition at the time of February 9, 201, the disposition of this case applying the provisions of the previous Enforcement Decree is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act occur in cases where a worker suffers from an injury or disease due to his/her duties and there is a physical disability after finishing treatment, and the worker acquires the right to claim disability benefits. Therefore, the determination of disability grade for the payment of disability benefits is in principle in accordance with the law at the time when the right to claim disability benefits arises, i.e., the right to claim disability benefits, and the same applies to the determination of disability grade after the completion of additional medical care.

In this case, according to the above facts, the plaintiff was paid disability benefits falling under class 13 of March 3, 2001 on the ground that the plaintiff's treatment was completed on February 9, 2001 after receiving the approval of medical care due to dyslexic systrophic strophic strophy from the inner part of the occupational accident, etc., and the treatment was completed on August 10, 2006. However, the plaintiff was under the condition of disability at the time of completion of medical care on August 10, 206 due to the aggravation of the above injury, and the medical care was completed after receiving the approval of medical care for the above injury from the defendant on November 28, 202. Thus, the plaintiff was under the condition of disability at the time of completion of medical treatment on August 10, 2006.

Article 31(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17977 of May 7, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree"), where a worker suffers from an injury or disease due to his/her duty and remains pletable, male falls under the disability grade No. 12 subparag. 13 of grade No. 7, and female falls under the disability grade No. 12 subparag. 12 of grade No. 7, but the above provision of Article 31(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1797 of May 7, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act") (referring to the above revised Enforcement Decree No. 2 of the same Act hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act"), and the above revised Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act 2 of the same Act.

Therefore, according to the revised enforcement decree, although the disability grade at the time of August 10, 2006, where symptoms after the plaintiff's additional medical care are fixed, falls under class 12 of class 7, the defendant's disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported, is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Yang Dong-soo