logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.23 2018구단53347
요양불승인처분취소
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. From September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on April 24, 2017, while working as a cleaning agent at D department stores located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business establishment”). On June 11, 2017, the Plaintiff retired from the instant business establishment and applied for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant on July 25, 2017 after the Plaintiff retired from the instant business establishment.

B. On January 4, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the result of deliberation by the Seoul Special Committee for Determination of Disease that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s work and the outbreak of the injury or disease of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff continued to be exposed to chemical substances contained in the chemical substances handled for cleaning work while working as a cleaning agent at the instant place of business, and suffered mental stress due to unfair discrimination, etc. from superior officers, and suffered excessive stress.

Therefore, while the Plaintiff was working at the instant workplace, there was a cause of the instant injury and injury and disease caused by the exposure to the climatic substances, etc., as seen above, and eventually, there was a proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Facts 1) The Plaintiff’s work experience before the instant workplace was located (A) E: The work period from April 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013: F work period: F work period: from May 1, 2013 to September 9, 2013; (2) the work period from May 1 to September 2013; and (b) the work period from the instant workplace (one work period: September 2013.).

arrow