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. The Plaintiff is a water treatment company affiliated with the non-party LAC (hereinafter “non-party hospital”), and around April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have a diversous aggregate of 1 to 3 pulse with the central line when he/she was in office by using his/her own car, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have a diversous aggregate of 1 to 3 pulse with the width and street lamps (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
B. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant. On June 7, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of approval for the payment of medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to deem the accident vehicle as the Plaintiff-owned vehicle to have worked under the control and management of the business owner at the time of the accident.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination against the Defendant, and the Defendant dismissed the request for examination on November 13, 2018 for the same reasons as the instant disposition.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Constitutional Court rendered the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 14933, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) by Act No. 2014, Sept. 29, 2016;
(2) Article 37(1)1(c) of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, which is subject to the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, is subject to the disposition of this case by applying Article 37(1)1(c) of the same Act to the instant accident that occurred after the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, and the disposition of this case by applying Article 37(1)1(c) of the same Act, shall be revoked as it goes against the binding force of the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution. (2) Even if the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act is applicable, the company that the Plaintiff worked for the Plaintiff did not provide a separate transit bus on behalf of its employees, and the Plaintiff’s period from August