logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.09.08 2015구합12323
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 May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the construction machinery management company B (representative: C) and worked as a dump truck driver at the construction site of Boan-si D (hereinafter “instant construction”) and asserted that “A dump truck and bump truck repair repair was performed at the construction site on September 23, 2014 at the request of the borrower at around 09:00, and the dump truck and bom wheeler’s recycling wheel, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant accident” (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The former University Hospital was diagnosed as the “hump and galphalopological distress ki (hereinafter “the instant disease”).

B. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on December 4, 2014, confirmed on the Plaintiff on December 4, 2014, that “the Plaintiff was employed only for the operation of dump trucks, and received KRW 100,000 to KRW 30,000 from the borrower, including the business owner, for a large number of dump trucks and dump truck repair costs. This constitutes a private income of the Plaintiff, not for its unique duties under the labor contract with the business owner, and thus, constitutes a private income of the Plaintiff, not for its own duties, and thus, the disaster that occurred during the repair of dump constitutes a disaster that occurred while performing his/her duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded an employment contract with B company and mainly drives E dump trucks, but the actual business instruction was received from F that was comprehensively entrusted by B company with the management of the said vehicle. The instant accident was done by F with F’s instruction, and 5 dump trucks and 2 sump trucks, which were entrusted by B company and G company.

arrow