Plaintiff (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Hong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

December 18, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan16919 decided April 25, 2013

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu13862 Decided October 31, 2013

Supreme Court Decision 2013Du24860 Decided October 29, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition not to grant medical care to the plaintiff on August 16, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 11, 2011, the Plaintiff, while working as the head of the farmland bank team (Grade II) of the Korea Rural Community Corporation net Mine Operations Operations Korea Rural Community Corporation, was diagnosed at the hospital as a result of MRI shooting (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and claimed that the instant injury and disease occurred due to occupational malpractice and stress, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on July 6, 201.

B. On the ground that the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on August 16, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant injury was determined to have been caused by the natural aggravation of existing diseases, such as urology and high blood pressure, and there is no proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for examination and received a decision of dismissal from the Defendant, and filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the request for reexamination was also dismissed on May 10, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 3, each entry in 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio, this paper examines the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition is null and void, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 201, etc.).

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 3, the defendant may revoke the disposition of this case on December 10, 2015, which was pending after the remand of the lawsuit of this case, and make a decision to approve medical care for the injury and disease of this case ex officio. Accordingly, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case, which was revoked, is sought for revocation of the disposition of this case, which was revoked, and thus, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful as it is without

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed due to the defendant's cancellation of disposition, and the total cost of the lawsuit is assessed against the defendant in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)