beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.04.09 2012구합1024

요양급여불승인처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 3, 1986, the Plaintiff joined the Ulsan Factory Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and worked as a production worker in B. On June 21, 2010 and July 20, 2010, the Plaintiff was temporarily dismissed from office from office on July 21, 2010 to August 24, 2010.

B. After that, the Plaintiff returned to the non-party company on August 25, 2010, and was diagnosed on December 4, 2010 by the Busan National University Hospital (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury and disease constituted occupational accidents, and filed an application for medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, however, on June 24, 201, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with each of the instant injury and each of the instant accidents to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Defendant regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on January 13, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have received treatment due to symptoms related to the instant branches before the instant accident occurred, and the instant accident, which is an accident that occurred during the Plaintiff’s duties, occurred, and eventually, the instant injury occurred. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff was an employee belonging to Nonparty Company B, and the Plaintiff was moving 6 engines around 09:10 on June 21, 2010.