(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.25 2015구단4399

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.25 2015구단4399

추가상병불승인처분취소등

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. The Plaintiff, due to an occupational accident on December 13, 1997 (hereinafter the occupational accident in this case), received medical treatment on December 31, 201, and completed the medical treatment on the part of the Plaintiff: (a) on December 193, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for the additional medical care on April 24, 201 with the approval of the re-medical care on “Iskinal chinal chinal chinitis,” “Iskinal chinal chinal chinitis,” (i.e., (ii) the (i) the (i) the (ii) the (ii) the (iii) the (iii) the (iv) the (iv) the (iv) the (iv) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) of the (v) the (v) the (v) the (vinal.

B. On January 3, 2014, the Defendant’s original disposition issued a disposition not to approve the said application (hereinafter the instant disposition) on May 21, 2014, according to a medical opinion that “the injury of the disease caused by the external force of the prosecutor’s check is presumed to be a compromise between CT Nos. 3-4 and 4-5.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 22 through 24, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the instant occupational accident that occurred on December 13, 1997, and thus, the instant disposition that did not approve the instant application for additional injury and disease on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition (medical opinion): The injury or disease of this case occurred due to the occupational accident of this case when based on the plaintiff's statement.

The advisory opinions of the defendant original disposition agency were confirmed on the upper part of the disease of this case by the plaintiff, which is judged to be a duplicative path.

Defendant Headquarters’s advisory services: Although the instant injury was confirmed to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not appear due to neutism in the 1998, and there is no ground to deem that the instant injury was caused due to an acute accident caused by the instant occupational accident.

this Court.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.12.29 2012구단10263

-서울고등법원 2014.12.12 2014누55764

-울산지방법원 2013.5.16.선고 2011구합1171 판결

-서울행정법원 2014.07.17 2013구단55645

-서울고등법원 2015.11.04 2014누59094