logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.14 2014누61066
추가상병불승인처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of a part of the following paragraph (2). As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a) Parts 8 to 11 (b) of the second parallel (2) shall be applied as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the additional injury and disease approval on “the 4-5 conical signboard escape certificate” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). However, on May 9, 2012, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the instant accident.

After that, on November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a new application for the approval of the additional injury and disease of the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, and the Defendant, on the same ground as on November 26, 2012, did not grant approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

(b) by inserting the second page 12 [based grounds for recognition] the phrase “B evidence No. 6, B evidence No. 7-1, and 2.”

(c)Paragraph 3, 12, the following shall be added:

“The Plaintiff’s condition taken from Cinematographic Cinematographic Council on April 12, 201, based on the result of the medical record appraisal commission (the Plaintiff’s condition was determined to be an expansion flat No. 4-5, which was found to be the result of 4-5 clatching due to external wound, and there is no streke or streke, etc. and no flat damage was observed due to external shock rather than external shock. - Considering the location of the hospital, the origin time of symptoms, age, and strekings, the degree of contribution of the instant accident to the injury to the injury of the instant case is presumed to be 20% - video materials and diagnosis dogs under the medical record, but the symptoms that the Plaintiff complained against the Plaintiff were related to 4-5 clating escape.

arrow