beta
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 November 25, 2016, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident that falls from the car volume and the cleaning vehicle on the wind of the collision (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 13, 2017, for the instant accident, that “the escape certificate of the conical signboard between the fourth and fifth trends and the light damage was incurred,” but the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the instant accident was confirmed to have occurred, but there was an escape certificate of the conical protruding signboard in the MRI, and there was no verification of the damage of the external protruding plane in the light of the MRI, and there was a medical record based on the past medical record (2015) on the escape certificate of the conical protruding signboard in the light of the past medical record (2015), and there was no confirmation of the damage in the case of the light protruding damage.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case caused the accident of this case was affected by the escape certificate of light signboards accompanied by the number of soldiers, the light damage of light trees, and the bale bale bale bale bale bale.
B. 1) The "occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, disability or death of an employee due to an occupational reason, and in order to be recognized as a disaster due to an occupational reason, the accident is caused by the occupational accident, and there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's accident and the work should be proved by Gap, 3, 4, 6 through 9, and Eul's evidence 2 and 3, and this Court.