[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

June 22, 2012

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan22917 decided February 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the decision not to grant medical care to the plaintiff on February 14, 2011 (the plaintiff was withdrawn from the part of the claim to revoke the decision not to grant medical care to the right chain of the lawsuit in this case in this case).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this decision is that only the part of the approval of the non-approval of the medical care for convenience (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) shall be referred to as “instant disposition”, and only the part of the approval of the non-approval of the medical care for damage to the right satisfaction (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) shall be deleted from the part of Article 2-A(1)(c)(1)(i)(i)(i)(iii)(i)(i)(i)(iii)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(iii)(i)(i)(i)(i)(iv)(18(1)(i)(i)(i)(i) of the first instance judgment shall be as follows:

2. Parts in height:

“1) The industrial accident compensation insurance system is an Act on Social Security for performing the State’s obligations required from the principle of social state under the Constitution, and needs to consider various factors such as the State’s financial burden, overall level of social security and national sentiment, and the technical aspects of the system itself, such as the system itself, etc., with respect to which the industrial accident compensation insurance system should be implemented in any way and within the scope of time, it can be said that the legislative body has the broad freedom of legislative formation (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ba2, Jul. 21, 2005; Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ba51, Jul. 24, 2003). Therefore, even if considering the purpose of the above Act such as prompt and fair compensation for occupational accidents, rehabilitation of workers suffering from occupational accidents, and promotion of their rehabilitation, interpretation beyond the possible scope of the language and text of the law should be carefully

Article 40(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that a worker who suffers from an injury or a disease due to an occupational reason shall be paid to the worker. In full view of the overall provisions of the above Act, medical care benefits refer to the worker's injury or disease, and the prior meaning of injury refers to the physical injury's injury. Thus, it cannot be included in the scope of injury as mentioned above (the plaintiff suffered from the accident as mentioned above sleep on the left side, but this is not related to the right side, and there is no other material to prove that the plaintiff suffered the injury on the part related to the right side satisfaction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was diagnosed on the right side slick, but it is difficult to view that according to the entries and images of evidence No. 3-2 and evidence No. 1, the degree of injury recognized as insignificant on the right side side is insignificant).

2) According to Article 40(4)2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 40(5) of the same Act, the scope of medical care benefits includes the provision of assistive devices or rehabilitation aids; however, this is intended to recover or assist in cases where a part or function of a body is lost due to an occupational reason, and it does not constitute a basis for recognizing medical care benefits by deeming it as an occupational injury when a assistive device already worn to assist the bodily injury that was lost due to an occupational reason, such as the Plaintiff, was destroyed due to an occupational reason.

3) Even though the possibility of interpreting an artificial institution’s damage caused by occupational reason is not completely ruled out as part of the body in a case where the artificial institution, etc. is able to fully replace the body due to technological development, it is difficult to view that the artificial institution, etc. falls under an auxiliary device up to the extent that it can be interpreted as a part of the body as above, rather than a relatively easy and full replacement of the body function.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)