최초요양급여불지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 19, 2013, while working as an employee of the Hanjin Logistics Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the Defendant, subject to the diagnosis of the 3, 4, 34/C5 Gyeong-gu, accompanied by the number of diseases (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
B. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the causal link between the instant accident and the instant accident is not recognized, and rendered a disposition not to approve the said application (hereinafter the instant disposition).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review to the Defendant, but was dismissed on July 4, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 21, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 14, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s main defense seems to be a clerical error in the Plaintiff’s written reply on July 9, 2014.
As the instant lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2014, after 90 days have elapsed since the written decision on dismissal of the petition for review was served, the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful on the grounds that the period for filing the lawsuit is expired.
The plaintiff's domicile at the time of permanent residence B was added to the whole purport of argument in the items of evidence Nos. 14 through 17, and evidence Nos. 1 through 3, but the plaintiff's decision to dismiss the request for examination was served on July 9, 2014. Although some documents were served at the plaintiff's request at the time of the request for examination, the plaintiff did not report the above address at the place of service. The plaintiff's domicile was not the plaintiff's address or domicile, and the above domicile was not the plaintiff's domicile, but the fact that the defendant was a convict E who was not the plaintiff's spouse, but did not live together with the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was notified of the decision to dismiss the request for examination on July 9, 2014.