logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.07.17 2014구단58610
요양급여신청 불승인처분 취소
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 January 25, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the DaehoM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SA”) and carried out the business of manufacturing automobile parts.

B. On July 16, 2013, while engaging in night work at the Non-Party Company’s workplace, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that “The Plaintiff was injured by the fluoral fluoral typosis, the fluoral typosis, the fluoral typosis, the product’s products, and the product defect, which were the fluorized worker B, due to the price per product from B, and “the injury incurred by the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, the left fluoral fluoral fluor, the left fluoral fluoral fla

C. On April 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that there is a difference between the Plaintiff and the first perpetrator’s assertion, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the first assaulter is the Plaintiff, and that the risk of dispute between the members of the club is inherent in the Plaintiff’s business, or that the risk of dispute is not the reality of risks ordinarily accompanying the risk, and that there is no causal link between the employees’ private act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on September 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 02:00, the Plaintiff was engaged in presses at the Non-Party Company’s workplace; (b) but (c) the Plaintiff was engaged in tallying; (d) that the product was damaged by the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff’s safety was changed due to the occurrence of a new dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (e) the body of the Plaintiff

BA in the process of being pushed by the Plaintiff to restrain B, who is the other party to violence.

arrow