logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.10.18 2016구단58867
일부상병불승인처분 취소청구의 소
Text

1. On April 21, 2016, the Defendant appears to be an obvious clerical error and thus ex officio as stated in the written claim of the complaint on November 26, 2015.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a police officer from September 3, 2001 to the present date.

B. At around 13:48 on November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff, a police officer of the Namyang Police Station B and the police officer, was carrying out patrol patrols on the street in front of the D cafeteria located in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, in order to stop at a stop line due to signalling at the first road, and the Plaintiff was over the left side of the walk along with the walk, a vehicle of SUV, which was proceeding after the rapid stop at the stop line due to signalling from the first road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of medical care for the injury caused by the instant accident to the Defendant for official duties. Accordingly, on April 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Defendant’s medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there was no causal link with the official duties with respect to “the knee in the knee part of the knee part of the knee part of the knee in the knee part of the knee in the knee part of the kne in the knee part of the kne in the knee part of the knee part of the kne in the knee part of the knee part of the kne in the knee part of the

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 8, 9, 11, Eul evidence No. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an injury caused by the instant accident, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise, even though it constitutes an occupational accident.

B. Plaintiff 1) On November 28, 2015, immediately after the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the light-based and tension, the base and tension, the base and tension of the shoulder, the base and the knee of the knee of the knee, and the base and knee of the knee of the knee of the knee of the knee at the instant hospital by December 2015, and the treatment, physical therapy, etc. of the knee of the knee and kne of the knee of the knee.

arrow