요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the first instance do not differ significantly from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the first instance. However, even in consideration of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the allegations in the first instance trial and the arguments in the trial, it is difficult to presume that the Plaintiff’s occupational course and stress led to “the occurrence of the instant injury or disease” or “a aggravation of the existing disease beyond nature” due to the Plaintiff’s occupational course and stress, and thus, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion for the same reason is justifiable.
Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court added the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance between the 6th and 16th, and applied the 16th (3) "(4)" to "(4)." As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of
【Supplementary Part】 (3) The Plaintiff asserts that 43.5 hours per week immediately before the occurrence of the injury or disease in this case was assigned to a department, such as having been in 43.5 hours per week, and having been on night duty. However, even if the Plaintiff worked for 43.5 hours per week immediately before the occurrence of the injury or disease in this case as her claim, this does not extend to the hours of work set out in the Public Notice of Ministry of Employment and Labor (No. 2013-32) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (No. 2013-1 (c) and subparagraph 1 (c) of the same attached Table, based on whether it falls under the category of “her chronic excessive work” as delegated by the Ministry of Employment and Labor (No. 2013-32).
A person shall be appointed.
2. The plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.