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. From October 1, 1965 to April 1, 1993, the Plaintiff served as an shot coal mining company with the shot coal powder, digging-out vessel, etc.
B. On November 21, 2015, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “salvinary disease on both sides” and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant.
C. Accordingly, on August 26, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on August 26, 2016, based on the determination by the Seoul Committee for Determination of the Seoul Occupational Disease that “The Defendant, as a result of the special diagnosis against the Plaintiff, there is no objective evidence of change in the color of the skin, the rano phenomenon was voice in the coolant test, and the harmful work was severed and occurred at the time near 23 years elapsed.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including virtual number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful in the instant disposition based on a different premise, since the Plaintiff, while serving in the Gangwon Coal Mining Co., Ltd. for a long time, moved a large number of manual cancers while digging out and digging out, even though there was a proximate causal relation with the instant work.
B. Under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the term "occupational accident" refers to an employee's injury, disease, physical disability, or death caused by his/her occupational accident while performing his/her duties. Therefore, there should be causation between the occupational accident and the disaster, and it should be proved by the claimant.
(2) The Plaintiff’s duty and the injury and disease of this case are assessed against the Plaintiff’s duty and the injury and disease of this case on January 31, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du8204, Jan. 31, 2008; 2006Du8204, Jan. 31, 2008).