요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 20, 1990, the Plaintiff joined the Ulsan Factory for Hyundai Automatic Operators (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) and was in charge of the business of assembling mid-term engines at the mid-term engine department until January 2, 1995, and the engine assembly business at one engine from January 3, 1995 to October 10, 2005, and from October 12, 2005, the Plaintiff was in charge of the business of assembling part for automobile transformation devices from October 12, 2005.
B. On February 3, 2013, the Plaintiff started operations on 17:00 on February 3, 2013, retired from the office on the next 08:00 following day, and was under emergency treatment at a B Hospital near the house and was sent to the Dong River Hospital and was under close inspection, following the Plaintiff’s diagnosis.
C. On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits on the ground that the instant injury was an occupational accident. However, on July 18, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s duties at the instant shopping branch on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s duties are not recognized.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1-1-3, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of disposition.
A. From June 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the work volume increased due to the failure of work process, the Plaintiff suffered a sudden stress, and the Plaintiff’s work volume continuously increased since three months prior to the outbreak of the instant injury and, in particular, from January 7, 2013 to December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff’s change in the form of work was brought about a sudden change in the physical rhythm due to the rapid change in the weekly work environment, duty stress, etc. Accordingly, the instant injury and disease occurred due to the Plaintiff’s continued excess, rapid change in work environment, duty stress, etc. As such, proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work at the instant injury and the instant injury and injury were recognized, the instant case is based on a different premise.