요양불승인처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of the injury and disease that the Plaintiff rendered on March 21, 2017 is revoked.
3.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 16, 198, the Plaintiff joined the Ulsan 2 Factory belonging to C Co., Ltd. and retired from C Co., Ltd. on February 4, 1992 after receiving a diagnosis of "MaDS 1" at the Busan National University Hospital on October 2, 1991.
B. Around August 1998, the Plaintiff became a member of Fhigh School Corporation D, and worked as an engineer at the construction site of F High School from around that time. Around September 20, 1999, the Plaintiff laid down the floor at a work site of F High School at a height of 1.5 meters to work for steel structure, such as a soft training hall, etc. at the construction site of F High School, and she slicked with severe pain. Around May 19, 200, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “mathic typuls without blood in both sides.”
C. On July 27, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the Defendant with respect to the bloodless dystyposis on both sides. However, on September 24, 2001, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the said application on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the work on September 24, 200
(hereinafter “instant disposition for non-approval of the medical care of September 24, 2001”) D.
On March 6, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant on the revocation of the medical care non-approval on September 24, 2001 at the Busan District Court Decision 2002Guhap1206, but the court of first instance rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 13, 2003 on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between work at the construction site at a Fhigh School and both high-level dystyposis. The above ruling became final and conclusive on November 11, 2004 by the Supreme Court of Korea.
E. On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for medical care benefits with respect to the head of the Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidal Epids on both sides. On March 21, 2017, the Defendant approved medical care with respect to Epidal Epidal Epidal Epidals on the ground that the Plaintiff indicated below: