beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.02.22 2017구단30675

요양불승인처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 16, 2016, at least 14:30 on December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant accident” by the Defendant, on the ground that the instant accident was caused by the cutting of the block on the left hand and the left part of the block was cut off (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the aggregate of the 5th left part of the upper part of the 5th part, the left part of the 5th part of the 5th part, the 5th part of the 5th part, the lower part of the 5th part, the left part of the 5th part of the 5th part, the lower part of the 5th part, the left part of the

While receiving medical care, the Plaintiff submitted a medical treatment plan for the period from April 27, 2017 to May 24, 2017 to the Defendant to extend the period of medical care in relation to “the aggregate of the 5th diversary diversary divers and the diversary diversary dives of the 5th diversary diversary diversary

B. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant approved the period from April 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017 under the above medical treatment plan to the Plaintiff, and decided not to approve the remainder of the period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Although the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant, on August 2, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on the basis of the results of deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, “The Plaintiff’s medical care was provided until May 10, 2017 due to the Plaintiff’s injury and disease in the upper margin of 5 balance in the left-hand 16th of December 16, 2016, 5 balance in the left-hand 5 balance, 5 balance in the left-hand stroke, stroke, and left-hand stroke, which seems to have been medically appropriate for the Plaintiff’s injury and disease, and the symptoms are deemed to have not been abnormal for the Plaintiff’s eromatic examination,” which

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the Plaintiff’s opinions, the Plaintiff’s instant injury and disease was not fixed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion was not fixed.