logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.04.25 2018구단73112
장해급여부지급처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of additional payment of disability benefits against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) diagnosed “the symptoms of both sides, i.e., the Egyptism,” and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on February 5, 2016.

B. On June 5, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work with the Plaintiff based on the results of the examination by the Integrated Review Committee for the District Headquarters in Daejeon, Daejeon, on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s infertility included a low frequency of the Plaintiff’s inception and its degree is at least the depth, the causal relation with the Plaintiff’s inception with the inception is insufficient, and it is difficult to exclude the possibility of the inception of danger due to the difference between the inception test and the inception test.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the request for review was dismissed on July 16, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred by being exposed to noise for a long time from January 7, 1975 to May 31, 1989, the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits of this case should be revoked on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work with the injury branch of this case on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits.

B. Fact 1) The Plaintiff’s experience of exposure to noise (C) was engaged in the dhot mine from January 7, 1975 to April 30, 1981, and from March 14, 1983 to May 31, 1989, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e. c

arrow