logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.07.06 2017구단64975
요양일부불승인처분취소
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 2, 2014, the Plaintiff joined B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and was in charge of preserving machinery and equipment from that time.

B. Around August 2016, the Plaintiff experienced pains while working in a non-party company, and was treated by being inside the Crout to the Crout on August 24, 2016. The hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff as the “Trout to the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout of the Trout and the

C. ① The Plaintiff is the Defendant.

Although the Defendant applied for medical care benefits for injury and disease described in the port, on November 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care to the Plaintiff.

② On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee decided on March 10, 2017 that the approval of the industrial accident is granted only to the extreme satisfe on the left

(B) In the case of the injury and disease described in paragraph (b) above, the remainder except for the extreme stimulion on the left-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side, the left-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-stimulging side-stimulging side-up collision (hereinafter “instant injury and disease,” and the measure of granting medical care exemption to the injury and disease of this case”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s entry, Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from November 9, 2009 to June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was in charge of the baking baking business; (b) from June 4, 2012 to January 1, 2014; (c) from Co., Ltd. to Non-Party Co., Ltd. to Non-Party Co., Ltd., the baking business; and (d) the baking baking business, etc. that the Plaintiff was in charge of the maintenance of machinery and equipment in Non-Party Company

As can be seen, the Plaintiff performed the duty of shouldering for a multi-year period, and thereby, the injury or disease of this case occurred, or the Plaintiff.

arrow