최초요양급여 불승인처분취소
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.
The court's explanation about this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which appeal is made under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justifiable even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance court were examined). On the 6th and 7th of the first instance court’s judgment, “The results of the request for the examination of the medical records and the results of the physical examination of the head of the Seoul Hospital Hospital in the first instance court,” written evidence No. 11 through No. 14-2, evidence No. 1 through No. 14-2, evidence No. 1 through No. 5, evidence No. 1 through No. 5, evidence No. 5, witness C, and D’s testimony, the results of the request for examination of the medical records and the results of physical examination of the Seoul Hospital in the first instance court’s Seoul Hospital in the second instance court,” the results of this court’s inquiry into the Korea Electric Power Corporation.
The 5th written judgment of the first instance court, the 11th to 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 5th judgment, shall be followed as follows.
① On April 22, 2010, the Plaintiff received first consultation with a psychiatrist and received treatment until June 3, 2010. On June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff received treatment from the Gangnam Synam Hospital’s psychiatrist.
However, the medical records prepared by the Seoul Medical Center at the time of April 22, 2010 contain only the Plaintiff’s statement that “from the beginning of 2010 to the beginning of the 2010, she was suffering from the post-fluence,” and do not contain any conflict with the commercial law or specific occupational stress in the company.
(A) The Plaintiff’s statement of pressure on conflict with commercial parties was made in the course of treatment around June 201, as seen earlier along with the economic issues arising from the child’s issues and the failure of business operations. The Plaintiff is mainly at the time of around 2010.