logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.05.27 2020구단53456
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 21, 2019, at around 06:45, the Plaintiff, a traffic accident at the parking lot in the D Logistics Center located in Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, as an employee of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”), proceeding to the public around 50 meters (the height is 10 meters) from the F Logistics to G logistics due to its fire, thereby falling down trees and falling back again, and conflicting with G pents.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case") received a diagnosis from the Defendant of "the ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal

B. On November 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “an accident that occurred in the parking lot after attending the workplace two hours prior to the running hour constitutes a private or private act unrelated to preparation for his/her duties and other necessary incidental acts in connection with his/her duties, and thus, cannot be deemed an accident during his/her duties. In cases where the blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff’s accident exceeds 0.08% based on the revocation of the license, it constitutes a criminal act under Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to an accident caused by drinking driving, and it is difficult to recognize it as an occupational accident.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is ordinarily 06:00 so that the Plaintiff’s entry of the instant company’s product input team can be conducted from 09:00, the starting time of business.

arrow