2018Gudan7747 Such revocation of revocation of a revocation of an additional soldier's pension

A

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

November 15, 2019

January 31, 2020

1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of an additional injury or disease against the Plaintiff on September 7, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as an occupational accident at the construction site of a new building in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and received medical care until December 31, 2017 with the Defendant’s approval, and was determined as Grade 12-10 of the disability grade after receiving medical care until December 31, 2017.

B. After that, on May 24, 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the first type, the first class, the first class, and the first class after the multiple-complication in C Hospital” and applied for additional medical care to the Defendant on August 22, 2018.

C. On September 7, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on additional disease and non-approval of additional medical care (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on non-approval of additional disease”) to the Plaintiff in accordance with the results of the review by the advisory branch of the Seoul Franchisc office, stating that “The defendant did not fall under the type 1 of multiple flachiscing symptoms, and did not fall under the type 1 of multiple flachiscing symptoms.” In accordance with the result of the review by the advisory branch of the Seoul Franchiscing branch, the Defendant issued a decision on additional disease and non-approval of additional medical care (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 9, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff was unable to file an application for additional injury and disease due to the occupational accident that occurred on the left side, and the complex injury and disease occurred on the operation department. Nevertheless, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application for additional injury and disease on the ground that it does not comply with the attached Form 1 “Standards for Diagnosis of the Complex Accident and Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern

B. Determination

앞서 본 처분의 경위 및 갑 제11호증의 기재, 이 법원의 D병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정들, 즉 ① 별지 '복합부위통증증후군 진단기준'은, 복합부위통증증후군으로 진단하기 위해서는 ㉠ 감각이상, ㉡ 혈관운동이상, ㉢ 발한 이상/부종, ㉣ 운동 이상/이영양성 변화의 4개 범주 중 3개에서 최소한 1개 이상의 증상이 있어야 하고, 위 4개 범주 중 2개 이상의 범주에서 최소한 1개 이상의 징후가 있어야 한다고 정하고 있는 점, ② 신체감정의는 "원고는 복합부위통증증후군 증상 중 ㉠ '감각이상' 범주에서 '감각과민, 이질통'을, ㉡ '부종 또는 발한 이상' 범주에서 '부종'을, ㉢ '운동 또는 이영양성 변화' 범주에서 '운동 가동역 감소, 운동부전'을 각 호소하고 있어 복합부위통증증후군 증상의 4개 범주 중 3개 범주에 해당하고, 복합부위통증증후군 징후 중 ㉠ NRS 및 EMG/NCS 검사 결과 '감각이상' 범주에서 '통각과민, 이질통'이 확인되고, ㉡ 삼상골스캔, 체열촬영 및 사진촬영 결과 '혈관이상' 범주에서 '피부 온도의 비대칭, 피부색의 변화'가 확인되며, ㉢ 의무기록지 확인, 사진촬영, 단순방사선 촬영 결과 '부종 또는 발한 이상' 범주에서 '부종'이 확인되고, ㉣ CT 촬영, 사진촬영 결과 '운동 또는 이영양성 변화' 범주에서 '운동 가동역 감소'가 확인되었는바, 복합부위통증증후군 징후의 4개 범주 모두에 해당한다."라는 의학적 소견을 제시하고 있고, 위 소견이 특별히 부당하다고 볼 만한 사정을 찾을 수 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 2017. 7. 11. 발생한 업무상 재해로 인해 원고에게 별지 '복합부위통증증후군 진단기준'에 부합하는 복합부위통증증후군이 발병하였다고 할 것이다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에서 피고가 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하므로 취소되어야 한다.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case, which rejected the application for additional injury and disease as to "the first type, the first type, the first type, and the first type, the first type, the first type, the first type, the first type, and the first class of the multi-purpose perjury, cannot be diagnosed to the plaintiff even if based on the opinion of the physical examination, is legitimate.

According to the result of the court's physical examination of the head of the D Hospital, it can be recognized that the above physical examination shows the medical opinion that "the above physical examination constitutes Type 2 of the Combined Traculation," and there is no circumstance to consider that the above opinion is particularly unfair. According to this, it is recognized that the combined Macological Maccom, which was caused to the plaintiff, is not a type 1 of the Complex Maccom, applied by the plaintiff as an additional Maccom, but a type 2 of the Complex Maccom, which is not a type 1 of the Maccom Maccom 2. However, it is appropriate that the defendant's disposal of the above Maccom 2 is not a type 1 of the Maccom Maccom 8, not a type 1 of the Maccom Maccom 2, but a new Maccom 9, which is not a type of the Maccom 2, which is not a type of the Maccom 2, which can not be accepted Maccom 9.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Byung-hun

1) On August 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) enacted and implemented the Guidelines for Handling Military Affairs (Guidelines No. 2014-22) related to the Consolidated Evidence; (b) from September 1, 2014; and (c) the foregoing Guidelines include the “Standards for Diagnosis of Consolidated Evidence” in the attached Table.

A person shall be appointed.