beta
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 November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff served as an engineer at the Ulsan-gun Seoul Metropolitan City New Apartment Construction Site (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”). On November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff was faced with a traffic accident around 20:10 (hereinafter “the instant accident”) while driving a car for his own use on his/her own, while driving the car at home, and suffered injury, such as “the completion of the upper part of the front part of the construction site” in the said accident.
B. On December 21, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of medical care on the ground that the injury inflicted on the Defendant’s instant accident constitutes occupational accident, but around February 24, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition from the Defendant to refuse medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the instant accident is confirmed through relevant data, and the accident is confirmed during the period of leaving the workplace by directly driving a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff at the workplace, and the vehicle at the time of the accident is not an accident while the Plaintiff was using a means of transportation or a means of transportation that can be deemed to have been provided by the business owner as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, and the vehicle management or right to use the vehicle used by commuting to and from work is confirmed to have exclusive authority of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the accident that occurred from commuting to and from work is ordinarily reserved by the choice of the path and is not subject to ordinary business owner’s control and management, and thus, the instant accident cannot be deemed an occupational accident.”
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review and reexamination, but each of the claims was dismissed on or around June 2012 and around September 17, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is the name of the Plaintiff.