logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.01.20 2016구합50257
요양급여불승인처분취소
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. From July 1, 1982 to January 16, 1991, the network B (hereinafter “the network”) had been affiliated with the department of official duties and worked as the electrical and piping lines from the mining center in which the fluence mining business was carried out, and worked as the fluence department from May 28, 191 to December 12, 191.

B. On September 11, 201, the Deceased was diagnosed as the primary lung cancer (hereinafter “instant injury”).

C. On November 17, 2014, the Deceased filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits by making the instant injury and disease as the injury and disease, and thereafter, the Deceased on February 8, 2015 and died due to multi-pact and long-term degradation.

On December 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) determined that, upon the delegation of the Deceased, the deceased’s application for medical care benefits was “the deceased confirmed the injury of the instant injury and worked in the coal mine for about nine years; (b) but the deceased did not have been exposed to the exposed decision-making free acid when entering the mine intermittently for six months and on the part of his official duties for eight years and seven months; and (c) it was difficult to recognize the “original lung cancer,” which is the applicant’s disease, as a business-related injury disease, because it was determined that the outcome of epidemiological investigation and the influence of smoking was verified for 40 years on the records of the obligations of the Gangwonnanasan Hospital, and thus, it was difficult to recognize the “original lung cancer,” which is the applicant’s disease, as a business-related injury. Therefore, the Defendant notified the Seoul High Disease Determination Committee that the application for medical care benefits should not be approved (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The plaintiff is the deceased's spouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. From July 1, 1982 to January 16, 1991, the deceased’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion served as an electrical and piping hole in the C Mining Center, and for about six months from May 28, 191 to December 12, 191, the deceased served as an carbon hex.

arrow