beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.09 2017누76946

요양급여결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff at the court of first instance is not different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claim even if the evidence submitted at the court of first instance showed the statement of evidence No. 8 additionally submitted at the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows: (a) the court added the “Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor” in the front of the “Medical Treatment No. 4, 10, 2014” in the first instance judgment; (b) deleted the “Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 13; (c) the “statement No. 6, 4” in the second and third parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel, as “entry or video”; and (d) the 7th and 7th parallel parallel workers from the “construction site” in the first and fourth parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel, 6, and 7 up to September 20, 2016 to the “construction site” in the second and fourth parallel parallel parallel, “this case’s construction site at the time of the first application for medical treatment,” and (d) the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be deemed as the work to have caused the injury and disease of this case.

The plaintiff asserts that the injury and disease of this case was not caused by the work at the construction site of this case.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented, it is reasonable to view that the injury and disease in this case occurred as a result of the work at the construction site of this case, or that the existing disease has aggravated above the natural progress. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① A, immediately before the instant injury and disease occurred at the construction site, had five beams produced and five pillars installed during eight hours from the instant construction site.

(v).