요양불승인처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the Plaintiff’s determination on the assertion emphasized by the first instance court, which is added to paragraph (2) below, and thus, the supplementary judgment is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (including summary language).
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C focuses on the Plaintiff on the entire business due to the Plaintiff’s lack of experience and knowledge about the job dispatch-related work, as the number of executives and employees, including the representative director, is the friendly relationship of S, which is the actual operator of the said company.
As a result, the Plaintiff, alone, managed 10 to 15 companies and 150 to 250 employees, and had extreme burden and stress on the instant injury and disease at the time of the occurrence of the injury and disease due to long distance driving following support to the dispatched workers, industrial accident management, etc.
Therefore, it should be deemed that a considerable causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease occurred.
B. Examining each description of Gap evidence Nos. 22 and evidence Nos. 40 submitted by the plaintiff in the trial at the trial, most of the worker dispatch-related work performed in C was concentrated on the plaintiff, or the work amount borne by the plaintiff was so excessive that the occurrence of the injury of the injury of this case was caused.
It is insufficient to view it.
Rather, according to the evidence evidence No. 7, even on the part of the Plaintiff’s work, the Plaintiff appears to have supported the Plaintiff to commute to and from work for approximately two to five dispatched workers on a week, or conducted the business of recovering service costs and industrial accident management up to two times. As to the H’s industrial accident emphasizing the Plaintiff due to the outbreak of the instant injury, it appears that: (a) as between February 21, 2016 and February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff continued to have conducted one time of H’s pathology, and one time of the industrial accident-related interview.
. These circumstances.