요양불승인처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the court to the following, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. The Plaintiff asserts that “The instant injury or disease occurred in the course of performing his duties, and there was no existing disease that may cause the injury or disease in the past in the Plaintiff, and there was a serious stress due to absence from work at night work prior to the occurrence of the injury or disease in the instant case, and there was a delay in the Plaintiff’s right bridge inconvenience due to the absence of work at night work prior to the occurrence of the injury or disease, and there was a delay in the instant injury or disease due to the suspension of work at night prior to the occurrence of the injury or disease, and the instant injury or disease occurred due to the suspension of work at night prior to the occurrence of the injury or disease and the suspension of work at 20 percent of a day.” Thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the
However, the above assertion by the Plaintiff does not differ from the contents of the allegation in the first instance trial. While examining both the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence (A17-18) submitted by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff was imposed on the Plaintiff the duty amount that was ordinarily difficult or difficult to predict prior to the occurrence of the instant injury or disease.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was suffering from severe occupational stress. In particular, even considering the Plaintiff’s delay disorder, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, since the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have a proximate causal relation between the branches of the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s work, in light of the Plaintiff’s physical conditions (e.g., 171cc., 171cc., 86cc., e., e., physical condition (e., e., e., e., d., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., s.
3. Conclusion.