재요양불승인처분취소
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 August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the injury and disease (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), which was caused by the occupational accident that occurred on August 15, 2015, called “the 4th divers of the 4th divers of the 4th divers of the divers of the 4th divers of the divers of the divers of the divers of the divers of the divers of the divers of the divers of the d
B. On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an application for additional medical care (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on July 26, 2017, but the Defendant did not attach an opinion of a medical institution that requires additional medical care, and requested the Plaintiff to supplement the application, but the Plaintiff agreed to return the instant application without implementing the additional medical care, on the ground that “the instant application was rejected on August 3, 2017.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant return disposition”. 【The ground for recognition” does not exist, 【No evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 3-2, 6-2, 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The defendant's decision on the prior defense of the merits does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
According to the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Act on the Treatment of Civil Petitions, and Article 24(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where it is necessary to supplement the received civil petition documents, the head of an administrative agency may request the civil petitioner to supplement them in writing or orally, and where the civil petitioner fails to perform this, he/she may return the civil petition documents.
The Defendant’s rejection of the application for additional medical care to the Plaintiff was based on the statutes on the treatment of the said civil petition, and it is reasonable to view that this constitutes an exercise of public authority as an enforcement of law
Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is the same.