logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.11.29 2019구단10660
추가상병요양불승인처분취소
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 July 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was an employee of a limited liability company B, who was diagnosed by an accident during the work on the part of July 30, 2017, and was recognized as an occupational accident on the part of the Plaintiff, and filed an additional application for an additional injury to the Defendant on November 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

B. On December 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of an additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The treatment of the Plaintiff’s health insurance data shows the details of the previous fluence, according to the results of the advisory society’s deliberation, and the causal link with the disaster is not recognized in light of the fact that the causal link with the disaster is not acknowledged as a result of confirmation of the RoI’s multi-sexal disease in the main text of the advisory society’s deliberation.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was 48 years of age at the time of the accident, which had been subject to medical treatment several times in the past. However, the Plaintiff was merely suffering from abnormal brates due to unreasonable exercise and did not result in vertebrates. Since March 201, the Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment on the essential part.

On July 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, while working on the roof of a house with approximately 4 meters high of 4 meters, was faced with the same fare of 1.8 meters above the ground and her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her shed (hereinafter “instant accident”). After the accident, the Plaintiff complained of the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her shed, was subject to intensive intensive treatment on the her her her her her her her part, and even after the accident, the instant accident

arrow