장해 등급 부지급처분 취소
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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are used or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 2 to Part 1 of the last 2 to part 3 of the 3rd e.g. [based on recognition] shall be written as follows:
A person shall be appointed.
E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Deceased suffered from an accident that occurred on April 23, 2011 (hereinafter “the instant accident”) and applied for an additional injury against the Defendant, claiming that he/she sustained “the instant additional injury” (hereinafter “the instant additional injury”).
On May 16, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that “the condition of drinking is confirmed on the records of the deceased’s emergency medical treatment, the Plaintiff used anti-cerebral medication in normal brain, but there is no ground to prove that the reason was livering once more than once, and the causal relationship between the first disaster and the injury branch cannot be recognized since it cannot be seen that it cannot be seen that it was a new credit after drinking.” (hereinafter “instant disposition not to grant the additional injury”).
As to this, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was dismissed on the ground that “It is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the deceased’s work, and it is lawful to recognize the instant additional injury and disease as an occupational accident,” although the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant additional injury and disease approval disposition by Busan District Court 201Gudan24333.”
The plaintiff appealed (Seoul High Court 2012Nu3248) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2013Du7759). However, all of the appeals were dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, this court is obvious.