Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

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

A. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the following: (a) while working as an activity assistant for the disabled at the Hanju Hospital on September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff: (b) caused her pain to the Henan (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”); (c) due to the foregoing accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having caused her pain to the Henan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”); and (d) due to the medical examination conducted at the hospital, her “the Henan Doe dume dume dum

B. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits due to occupational accidents on the part of the Defendant’s 'Yek Cork Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk’, and on October 22, 2013, the Defendant approved the medical care for the Plaintiff on the ground that the causal relationship between his/her duties and the accident was recognized. However, the Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk Mealk Meal Mealk’s Mealk Mealk’s Mealk Mealk Mealk’s Mealk Mealk Mealk’

AB made it.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for an examination to the Defendant on January 9, 2014. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the relevant discick, etc. on March 5, 2014. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on May 12, 2014, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the same ground as the same on July 22, 2014, and the said written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on July 28, 2014. The Plaintiff was served on October 21, 2014.

The instant lawsuit was filed in this Court.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, non-s. 1, 3, 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Escopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic

B. Defendant’s assertion

Unlike the catum catum catum catum which was recognized as a disaster due to the accident of this case, since the catum catum catum catum disease occurred from the 4-5 catum catum catum catum catum catum.

3. Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff’s duties and the circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows: (a) from that time, the Plaintiff entered C, and thereafter, from that time on September 6, 2013, the date of the instant accident.

Until now, they worked as activity assistants for the disabled.

B) The Plaintiff ordinarily worked between 8:00 p.m. and 9:0 p.m., while leaving around 7:0 p.m. and 12:0 p.m., the Plaintiff performed duties to change, treat, change, or move the body of a patient who has difficulty in driving due to illness, injury, disability, etc.. The Plaintiff, as a patient of approximately 45 km, was in a state of being mixed with the patient due to the lower half-time paralysis, was suffering from the desire, and the body level was frequently changed. The Plaintiff was frequently using the patient’s body at the time of changing the patient’s body, and the patient was seated in the wheelchairs, or was kiddd from the bed on the bed. While the need of 24 hours p.m. during the work period, the Plaintiff did not frequently appeal for the intensity of work due to lack of additional human resources, but did not improve the working environment.

C) On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) frighted on the part of the patient; (b) frighted her with severe pain; and (c) her work was suspended because it could not help her blurate.

2) On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff’s existing medical history stated that the D Hospital’s “nick surgery 6 to 7 years in her medical record book”, and that fin was flicked.

B) According to the Plaintiff’s health insurance benefit content, the Plaintiff’s health insurance benefit content from July 18, 2008 to October 2011.

27. Until October 18, 2008, Doz. 9 Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. 9 Doz. (hereinafter referred to as "other congrative signboards obstacles specified by Gangwon Medical Center on July 18, 2008", "any other specified congrative signboards obstacles from Ewon on October 1, 2008", and December 2008.

4. Roof, “other side signboards specified in E from E,” “or other side signboards specified in E from E on July 7, 2009,” “or other side signboards specified in E from E on July 21, 2009,” “at Ewon E on December 31, 2009, humphe and tensions,” respectively, “from E on January 2, 2010 and January 5, 2010, humphe and tensions,” respectively, “or other side signboards specified in E from E on May 18, 201,” “or other side signboards for treatment,” “or other side signboards for treatment,” the Plaintiff’s treatment trend of which was received from E on October 27, 2011,” and the Plaintiff’s treatment trend of which was written from Egye hospital or from Egye.

On September 7, 2013, the day after the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in G Council on the ground of Huuri Certificate. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as 'Yaeum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum.’ The Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the treatment period for the Plaintiff; (b) the four-day hospitalization period for the four-day hospitalization period; (c) the patient was anticipated to have been in the hospital, and (d) the possibility of engaging in subsequent work for two

The Plaintiff’s medical opinion on the disc disease in the Helopal injury is as follows. (A) The Plaintiff’s medical opinion on the Helopal disc disease is as follows: Helopal discosis, the Elopal disc fluoral base, the Elopic blopic blopic blopical flopical flopicide: future balthal, fixed pin replacement operation, and balthic flopic flopic flopic flopic flopic flopical flops, and artificial and flopic flopic flopic f

B) The Defendant’s advisory opinion (the advisory opinion No. 1, 2, and 3) - No. 5 of the previous position - No. 1 of the astronomical 1,000, and the Defendant’s advisory opinion is apparent that there was an obvious opinion on the decline of the conical signboard No. 4 to 5 of the Meetical Meetical video (MRI). There is no causal link between the Meet 4 to 5 of the Meetical Meetical Meet and the disaster. The causal relationship between the Mepical Meet and the disaster is recognized.

C) From the perspective of opinion self-cognition video (RI) consulting the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee’s advice, it is observed from the 4-5th century the number of congratory signboards, the decline of congratory shooting, the formation of alley, the expansion of congrative signboards, the grix of congrative signboards, the gratorys, and the yellow circles. This seems to have no causal relation with disasters, since it appears to have been naturally occurring in the adjacent sections after a fixed period between 1,00,000 square meters.

D) Opinions from the outside of the Chuncheon Hospital and I (the result of the request for appraisal of medical records) of the Korea Forest University

On September 17, 2013, the plaintiff's dominant position 5 - the fixed and aggregate oil condition of the apparatus set up in 1,000, and the opinion on the escape of the protruding signboards set up in 4 to 5 from 4 in 1,000 (the opinion on the change of the departure of the frame, the formation of a frame, and accompanying the intensity of the conical signboard) are observed.

In the case of the accident of this case, it is necessary to conclude that the Ethical disc scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic 4 to 5 existing diseases

There is little possibility that the disc scopic disease overlaps with the Plaintiff’s occupational course, stress, and existing disease (it is difficult to see that the scopic change occurs due to a short-term specific work).

Although it is necessary to recognize the cryptal base as an occupational accident, the cryptary disc disease is regarded as a cryptive disease.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

In order to constitute the "occupational Accident" subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the causal relationship between the occupational accident and the occupational accident is recognized. However, even if the occupational accident is an existing disease that is not directly related to the occupational accident, if it is worse or showing symptoms only due to the occupational accident, the causal relationship between the occupational accident should be deemed to exist, and if the aggravated part is not recovered before the aggravation or aggravation and symptoms are fixed, it should be treated as occupational accident until the symptoms are fixed. Such causal relationship should be proved by the assertion, but it is not necessarily required to establish medical and natural medical evidence, but if there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disease in light of all the circumstances such as the health condition, outbreak circumstance, details of the disease, and the progress of treatment at the time of employment, it can be viewed that there is evidence if there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the disease. Furthermore, unlike disability benefits provided for in the above Act, unlike disability benefits with the focus of guaranteeing the ability to be lost from the occupational accident to a certain level, it should be compared to 1610 symptoms before and after the final judgment.

According to the Plaintiff’s medical record, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s symptoms were the escape certificate of a happy signboard that has been proceeding for a long time due to the Plaintiff’s 4th and five ethic changes before the instant accident occurred. However, as seen above, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s application for medical care without any specific typhical certificate for about one year from October 10, 2012 to September 6, 2013, when the Plaintiff was suffering from the escape certificate of a maximum pedagoging signboard from the 4th and five ethic changes in ethic.g., the Plaintiff’s request for medical care without any specific typhical certificate. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s application for medical care was unlawful even if it did not go beyond the Plaintiff’s request for medical care due to an occupational accident.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, the plaintiff's name shall be cited for the reasons of its reasoning and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.