요양급여부지급처분취소
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 October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Indonesia and worked in Indonesia from that time. On January 19, 2013, the Plaintiff completed a company’s meeting ceremony, working on January 19, 2013, and was faced with a disaster that inflicts bodily injury on head (hereinafter “the instant disaster”).
B. Since then, the Plaintiff received medical treatment for two months after being transmitted to the C Hospital in Indonesia, and was under medical treatment, and entered Korea, and was diagnosed as “the cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spa, detailed ma
C. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the above accident occurred while serving in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant. However, on June 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that: (i) there is no objective material to confirm that the Plaintiff was dispatched to the employee affiliated with D; (ii) there is no objective material to confirm that the Plaintiff was dispatched to the employee affiliated with D; and (iii) the Plaintiff was directly employed as the employee affiliated with E (hereinafter “local company”); and (ii) even if dispatched to D employees, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was not applied because the Plaintiff filed an application for insurance for temporary agency workers overseas prior to the occurrence of the accident
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion was entered into D and worked in Indonesia. At the time, the plaintiff was placed with the direction of the president of D and received benefits from D.
All persons who participated in the ceremony at the time of the disaster of this case were D's employees.
Therefore, the plaintiff's work in Indonesia is simply a place of work abroad.