beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.10.17 2017구단11009

재요양불승인처분취소

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 December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was employed as a bus driver at a bus transport company, was diagnosed as “patch escape certificate No. 4-5 in the night 4-5” after being sent to the hospital, while driving a bus around 08:00 on December 7, 2015. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received an operational treatment for the said injury and disease (e.g., catulation and catch removal).

After July 29, 2016, according to the ruling of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, the medical care was approved for the injury or disease, and the Plaintiff was receiving medical care from December 7, 2015 to January 13, 2017 and completed the medical treatment.

B. On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-treatment with the Defendant on the ground that “the instant injury was caused by the aggravation of the injury and disease, accompanied by the nephism certificate, and any other conical signboard disability (hereinafter “instant injury”).”

Accordingly, on September 8, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for re-treatment on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not have any opinion clearly aggravated in light of the time when the medical care was completed in the RoI’s Ministry of Health and Welfare, and there is no need for active surgery treatment, and thus no re-treatment is recognized.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] . [The Disposition in this case] is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the injury and disease of this case was aggravated or aggravated than the time of cure, and thus, the disposition of this case which acknowledged the need for additional medical care was unlawful.

B. (1) According to Article 51 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, re-medical care benefits are provided for occupational injury or disease, and there is a proximate causal link between the recovered occupational injury or disease and the injury or disease subject to re-medical care, and the state of injury or disease subject to re-medical care becomes worse than at the time of cure, or otherwise.