Nonparty 1, et al., a joint management of the rehabilitation debtor Namyang Construction Corporation and one other

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Intervenor joining the Defendant

October 7, 2015

1. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant’s decision on approval of the medical care insurance benefits to the Intervenor joining the Defendant is revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the intervention in the lawsuit is assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Namyang Construction Co., Ltd. is the original contractor of the three sections of the Bogeumjari Housing Construction Work ordered by the Incheon Metropolitan City Corporation, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”), from August 27, 2013 to December 14, 2013, served as a master craftsman affiliated with the M&D Co., Ltd., Ltd., a subcontractor of the unclaimed, waterproof and tidal Construction Work at the construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B. On November 1, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on February 20, 2014, alleging that the Intervenor had been diagnosed “the upper part and the top part of the left side of the disease” (hereinafter “the injury and disease of this case”) as a result of the Plaintiff’s visit to the hospital of the same kind where the burden was continuously accumulated on the left shoulder while working at the construction site of this case from November 1, 2013.

C. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant recognized the instant injury and disease as an occupational accident and issued a disposition to approve the medical care of the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Intervenor had been receiving treatment on the left shoulder part of the instant construction site, such as the “satisfying, shoulder satisfying, and tension.” In light of the foregoing, the instant wound is likely to have already occurred prior to the instant construction site regardless of the work at the instant construction site. Moreover, the Intervenor’s duties do not bear the burden on the left shoulder to the extent that it would cause the instant wound. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s duties and the instant wound are unlawful, even if there is no proximate causal relation between the Intervenor’s duties and the instant wound, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Intervenor stated that the Intervenor worked as an unofficial for about 27 years from January 1, 1987 to December 2013 at the time of the disaster investigation. According to the employment insurance daily work statement, the Intervenor’s work performance was confirmed for about 9 years and 5 months from July 2004 to December 2013. Of them, the period of work at the construction site of this case from August 27, 2013 to December 14, 2013.

The principal work of the Intervenor is to put soil or cement into the wall or floor at the construction site. The detailed contents of the work are to remove soil bed from the wall or floor by putting aground at the left hand about about five kilograms of soil.

⑶ 참가인은 이 사건 상병을 진단받기 전까지 2007. 1. 11.부터 2008. 4. 5.까지 ☆☆☆한의원에서 ‘기혈응체 견비통’으로 7회, 2009. 8. 25.부터 2009. 9. 30.까지 ▽▽▽한의원에서 ‘담음견비통’으로 9회, 2011. 3. 16. ▽▽▽한의원에서 ‘상세불명의 어깨 병터’로 1회, 2012. 9. 18.부터 2013. 10. 30.까지 ◎◎◎◎한의원에서 ‘견쇄관절의 염좌 및 긴장’으로 9회, 2013. 2. 1.부터 2013. 3. 4.까지 ◁◁◁◁한의원에서 ‘어깨의 유착성 피막염’으로 12회, 2013. 11. 1.부터 2014. 1. 7.까지 □□정형외과신경외과의원에서 ‘어깨의 유착성 피막염’으로 6회, 2013. 11. 7.부터 2014. 1. 9.까지 ◇◇한의원에서 ‘어깨 관절의 염좌 및 긴장’으로 12회, 2013. 12. 24. ▷▷▷한의원에서 ‘상세불명의 어깨병변’으로 1회 각 진료받은 내역이 확인된다.

Applicant and thereafter, the Intervenor was conducted on February 4, 2014 by visiting the relevant injury and disease at the hospital same as the same time and receiving medical treatment on February 10, 2014

(v) medical opinions;

㈎ 재해조사서의 직업환경의학전문의 소견

In light of the Intervenor’s work contents, the degree of brupted excavation in the field of the check does not exceed 45 degrees, so it is difficult to evaluate the degree of brue as a part of the shoulder-sharing work. Therefore, it is evaluated that the relationship with the instant upper branch is lower.

㈏ 피고 자문의 소견

It is the opinion of the change in the sediment, not the opinion of the imprative opinion.

㈐ 경인업무상질병판정위원회 소견

Since the injury and disease of this case is confirmed in the MRI, the burden of shoulder out of the part of the intervenor's work is confirmed, and it is judged that it is related to work as long as the period of service is long, a proximate causal relation is recognized with the duties of the injury and disease of this case.

㈑ 이 법원 진료기록감정촉탁결과

- Injury or disease caused by the left side of the intervenor is confirmed to be satis and satisfy, and satisfyed to be satched.

- In general, the term “satisfing upper part and satisfing in the direction of the atmosphere” has occurred due to satisfal path: ① 45 degrees or more of the ability of bend (in the direction of the upper part) of the shoulder pipe, ② repeats of actions such as honding (in the direction of the upper part) of the shoulder pipe, fluoring (in the direction of the upper part of the shoulder), fluoring (in the direction of the upper part of the shoulder), and power at least four times in one minute of the action, ③ improper attitude or repeated action, or ④ use the state vibration tools in an inappropriate attitude or repeated action.

- In the course of the work performed by the Intervenor, the left shoulder attitude of the shoulder is not different (the degree of the electric shock of the shoulder is not more than 45 degrees) and repeated action is deemed to be almost nonexistent, and the work to be done without an inappropriate attitude or repeated action is not enough to raise the risk of the shock of the shoulder. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the Intervenor’s work as a work that imposes a burden on the left shoulder.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제6 내지 8호증, 을 제1 내지 4호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 ♤♤♤대학교 ◐◐◐◐병원장에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁결과, 변론 전체의 취지

C. Determination

(1) "Occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an employee's injury, disease, disability, or death caused by occupational reason. In order to be recognized as a disaster caused by occupational reason, the accident in question is caused by occupational reason, and there is a proximate causal relation between occupational accident and occupational accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's accident and occupational accident should be proved by the claimant.

As to the instant case, the author's work at the construction site, namely, ① the Intervenor's work to continuously carry out heavy soil satisfy, but it is difficult to view that the Intervenor's work to have an impact on the check upper part and the order of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of this case is difficult to be evaluated as a work imposing a burden on the left shoulder in light of the Intervenor's work contents at the time of the accident investigation, ② The medical doctor and the appraisal of this court cannot be evaluated as the work at the construction site, ③ The Judgment Committee on Determination of Occupational Disease of this case is likely to bear a burden on the part of the Intervenor's work, ③ the Intervenor's medical opinion that it is difficult to recognize the possibility of the injury of the injury and injury of the injury and injury of the injury of the injury and the injury of the injury. However, it is difficult to recognize the possibility of the injury and injury of the injury and injury of the injury and the possibility of the injury and injury of the Intervenor's work at the construction site of this case from 7 months after the injury and the injury.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Code provides that “The instant disposition is unlawful.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Kim Jong-dong