추가상병불승인처분취소
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.
2...
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the Defendant’s additional medical care non-approval (i.e., the first instance court’s claim against the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury, namely, ① anti-months on the left-hand side, ② the Defendant’s additional medical care non-approval (ii). The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the injury, and ② the Plaintiff’s claim against the injury of the injury of the injury.
Since only the defendant appealed on the part against him, the plaintiff's claim on the injury and disease is excluded from the object of the judgment of this court.
2. The reasons why the court has used this part of the disposition are as stated in the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The reasoning of the judgment by the court as to this part of the legality of the disposition is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part on “the legality of the disposition 2.” Thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary part] On the 6th judgment of the first instance, the following facts shall be added to the following facts:
“E) The result of the fact-finding on the head of the East University Hospital of this Court (related to the dyssis damage on the side of the region) - In the case of the plaintiff, the operational treatment is not provided even if there is no crys of symptoms.
- The psychotropic damage was found to have failed to or impossible to diagnose at the time of the award, and if the psychotropic damage was found at the time of the award, falchising could have been done.
However, at the time of the examination of an additional injury or disease, the time was delayed, and active treatment such as operation is impossible or unnecessary.
- In the case of the plaintiff, it is required to observe the progress without any special treatment.
Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 12 to 9 of the judgment, is as follows.