logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.01 2014구단1196
최초요양급여 및 휴업급여 일부불승인처분 취소
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 or around July 3, 2013, while the Plaintiff was employed in subsidiary Korea Co., Ltd. and worked as a special melting hole, around 15:30 on October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff received physical therapy and pharmacologic treatment, etc. after being diagnosed with approximately 20 km weight in order to melting the earthquake-proof tank in the factory, around 15:30 on October 8, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff continued to work for a certain degree, but again, went against the Maliology and Maliology, and went back on December 2, 2013. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of the 4-5 plenary signboard escape certificate from the Maliwon on December 13, 2012, and was diagnosed on December 13, 2012, and applied for medical care in relation to the above injury and disease (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

B. On March 11, 2014, the Defendant approved the medical care for the Heatitis, and rendered the instant disposition to not approve the medical care on the ground that the Defendant did not appeal to the radioactive waste which was not obvious at the time of the disaster with respect to the escape certificate of the conical signboard (e.g., the escape certificate of the pertinent conical signboard between the fourth-5 and that it appears to be a change in the state of clinical progress and that it was a change in the state of happiness.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-5, Gap evidence 4-1, and Gap evidence 5-1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a change of the nature of the Plaintiff’s departure from the 4-5 conical signboard, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which rejected medical care, was unlawful despite the Plaintiff’s sudden aggravation of the disease of this case due to a sudden injury in the course of performing his/her duties.

B. The judgment of the court is the D Hospital of this Court.

arrow