1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Details of the disposition

The reasons for this part of the judgment are as follows, except for the part which is dismissed as follows:

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second 13th 14th 6th , “the Plaintiff has paid disability compensation annuities equivalent to Grade 5 to the Plaintiff” means that “The Plaintiff first pays 8,774,510 won for the difference of disability compensation annuities for the period from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2012, according to the higher disability grade, and pays the disability compensation annuity equivalent to Grade 5 for the period from October 1, 2012 to December 2012.”

From the second 15th to the third 1st one, the second 15th is as follows:

D. After that, the Defendant: (a) deemed the date of approval of the additional illness as the date of occurrence of the right to claim disability benefits is an error in the course of business; (b) on June 25, 2008, which is the date of cure specified in the disability examination statement, the date of commencing the extinctive prescription; and (c) on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim disability benefits has expired since three years have passed since the date of cure; (b) on January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff’s disability grade was corrected under class 6-5 of class 6 and the amount corresponding to the difference between the annuity amount of class 5 and the annuity amount of class 6 (hereinafter “the difference in this case”).

2) The disposition that collects unjust enrichment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as unjust enrichment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) Whether the instant disposition was lawful

A. The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant application on or around March 2009, and the employee belonging to the Defendant left it alone, which took place on August 26, 201, and the period of extinctive prescription shall be deemed to run from the date of obtaining the recognition of the neutronic preventive light as an additional injury, and thus, the extinctive prescription has not yet expired at the time of the instant application. 2) Even if the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits expired, the Defendant raised a higher percentage.