요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added to
Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Judgment] The plaintiff asserts that there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's work and the occurrence of the injury or disease of this case in the trial.
However, in full view of all the evidence, including the evidence additionally submitted at the trial, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was suffering from overwork or stress to the extent that it is difficult to reduce when it is based on the Plaintiff’s health or physical condition while working as a business site B of SamsungSI Co., Ltd. prior to the occurrence of the instant injury.
Rather, according to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance and the court of this court with respect to SamsungSID Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s excessive work hours of the Plaintiff, which are objectively confirmed prior to the occurrence of the instant injury and disease, are limited to four hours around October, 2010 and eight hours around November, 201, and the Plaintiff did not work for three-dimensionals around December, 2010, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff did not increase the work volume by particularly increasing the production volume or strengthening the target management compared to other months.
According to the result of the fact-finding conducted by the first instance court, there is a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s duties and the outbreak of the injury or disease of this case. However, this is premised on the Plaintiff’s overwork, such as overtime work, and it is difficult to recognize the probative value readily.
In addition to the circumstances cited by the first instance court as seen earlier, it is difficult to find that there is a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion.