진폐보험급여부지급처분취소
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 April 1, 1985 to July 1, 1987, the Plaintiff, who was employed as a pre-cursor in Bane for about two years and three months from Bane and retired, filed an application for medical care benefits for pneumoconiosis with the Defendant upon diagnosis of pneumoconiosis symptoms on October 26, 2015.
B. From December 15, 2015 to December 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a decision to pay the Pneumoconiosis Insurance Benefits Board (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis type constitutes symptoms (0/1) and cardiopulmonary function (F1), following deliberation by the Pneumoconiosis Deliberation Committee, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis type constitutes light (F1).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful, even though it constitutes the type of pneumoconiosis 4.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. In light of the fact that the above fact-finding shows Eul evidence Nos. 1, the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the Seoul Hospital of the relevant court for the examination of the medical records and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, the pneumoconiosis examination council determines as a result of the examination that the Plaintiff's pneumoconiosis type accompanied by non-activity-based pulmonary tuberculosis (0/1), and the cardiopulmonary function (F1), considering the fact that the examination of the medical records shows the Plaintiff's medical opinion that the Plaintiff's pneumoconiosis type is proven (0/1) and the cardiopulmonary function constitutes light (F1), considering the chest simple radioactive image opinion and the Plaintiff's experience of exposure to pneumoconiosis, it is insufficient to recognize that the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3 alone corresponds to the Plaintiff's pneumoconiosis type Nos. 4 or the Plaintiff's condition constitutes the requirement for the payment of pneumoconiosis insurance benefits. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, this case.