logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.11.20 2014구합10511
요양불승인처분취소
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 August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff became a member of the company Acheon Bus Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and completed the operation of urban buses around 11:50 on May 12, 2012, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on December 18, 2013, after completing the operation of urban bus at around 11:50 on May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) was placed in the restaurant of the instant company; (b) was placed in the spirit of 12:05; (c) went back to the office after going to rest in the office; (d) while the Plaintiff was in the emergency hospital in the company’s body on May 15, 2012, and was in the emergency room in the Seoyangyang University Hospital located in Daejeon; and (e) was diagnosed as brain flasc and the left-hand flab (hereinafter “instant injury”).

B. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with the determination by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, as to the Plaintiff on May 17, 2012, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s brain color was confirmed on May 17, 2012; (b) the burden factor was not verified, such as a sudden change in the working environment or occupational stress and excessive extension work to the extent that it could have an obvious influence on the normal function of the immediately preceding and previous cerebrovascular; and (c) it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the Defendant as a result of the determination by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked as an urban bus engineer for more than 10 years in the instant company. In particular, the Plaintiff continued to work for three to four days a day on May 201, while serving for three to four a day on the day, and the degree of overwork is increased by the number of hours depending on the Plaintiff’s driving of urban bus and bus.

arrow