logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.10 2018누40180
요양승인처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company running construction business, etc., and is a policyholder of industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. From November 12, 2015 to December 25, 2015, work A worked at the construction site for the Plaintiff’s implementation of the Plaintiff, as an employee for the daily use belonging to Samil Construction Co., Ltd., a subcontractor of the Plaintiff, who works at the construction site for Samsung Dplate construction site where the Plaintiff was in force (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

C. A’n’s “nurical noise noise calculical calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculatory calculical calculical calculical calculic calculical calculic calculic calculative calculic calculic

(2) A was diagnosed at the construction site of this case. A was exposed to noise inside and outside of 85dB through 90dB at a multiple construction site for about 32 years prior to the work as the library of this case.

On December 3, 2015, A requested disability benefits to the Defendant on December 3, 2015. (2) On May 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to approve the medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s first branch and the Plaintiff’s first branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s second-year first-year first-year first-year first-year first-year first-year-end cancer work.

3) Meanwhile, the notice of the instant disposition was written by the Defendant in accordance with the Defendant’s guidelines that “if it is difficult to clearly determine one of the harmful workplaces where a disaster victim had worked as the main workplace for the occurrence of a disease, the applicable workplace shall be the applicable workplace.” (The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the applicable workplace shall be the applicable workplace).”

arrow