요양급여불승인처분취소
1. On October 1, 2015 and November 25, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care for each Plaintiff is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff (B) served respectively at C Co., Ltd. from February 2, 1989 to October 4, 1992, and at the Korea Coal Corporation D Mining Corporation from February 10, 1993 to May 15, 2014.
B. The plaintiff is the above A.
On July 24, 2015, the Defendant applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s above application for medical care benefits was merely due to a change in the state of happiness, and cannot be deemed as due to work; and (b) the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on October 1, 2015.
The plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed a request for examination and a request for reexamination, but all dismissed.
C. The plaintiff is the above A.
On August 28, 2015, in the event that both sides of the anti-cerebral typosis occurred while working as described in the port, the Defendant filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the said application on November 25, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s above application for medical care benefits cannot be deemed to have occurred due to his/her duties.
The plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, was dismissed.
(hereinafter) In the order of each disposition listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, "Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of this case", and in the aggregate, "each of the dispositions of this case" is "the ground for recognition", "no dispute exists," and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments of Gap's Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7.
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. It is clear that the diversative signboards escape certificate No. 1-5 between the injury and disease claimed by the Plaintiff, which is the injury and disease claimed by the Plaintiff, and the diversty typosis of both sides, arising from the work that imposes a physical burden on the Plaintiff while working in coal mines for not less than 20 years.
Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case rendered on different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.
B. Article 5 Subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).