요양불승인취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From July 20, 2014, the Plaintiff, at the construction site of a research institute built by CJ Construction Co., Ltd., performed the operation of softs and cryst elevator (cargos) for cargo, and on February 12, 2015, at B Hospital on February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “the condition after the inverte base, the flue base, the flue base, the escape certificate, and the vertebrate (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”),” and applied for medical care to the Defendant on February 27, 2015.
B. On June 22, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that rejected medical care against the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no special abnormal check in the state of the previous operation, and that there is no high degree of the Plaintiff’s duty on the part of the main sentence of the instant case on the ground that there is no high degree of the physical burden accumulated on the main sentence of the instant case and there is no proximate causal relation between the main sentence of the instant case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion was found to have been unable to take care of female physical strength, such as opening and closing heavy front and rear doors while driving a Hosta, and putting iron plates on the floor, etc., while engaging in heavy labor every nine hours a day from 07:00 to 18.00 hours a day, with the exception of one hour a day from 07:00 to 18.00 hours a day, and the defendant's disposition against which medical care was not granted is unlawful.
B. Each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the board alone is not sufficient to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the disaster situation, which is the body of the body of the Gu, or the business branch of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, each entry of Nos. 5 through 22, Eul evidence Nos. 23 and 24, respectively, and the overall purport of the video and oral arguments.