logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.07.21 2019구단57575
요양불승인처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant for medical care benefits by asserting that the instant injury and disease was caused by long-term exposure to the contact, meme, etc. exposed while working at the shipbuilding yard (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). However, on January 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that the proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work with the instant injury and the instant injury and disease was not recognized.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether the pertinent injury or disease was in proximate causal relation with the business performed by the Plaintiff in the shipbuilding yard

B. (1) Determination of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act during the performance of the worker’s duties. As such, there should be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease; the causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting it; and even if the causal relationship is not necessarily required to be clearly proved by medical and natural science, proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease should be inferred in consideration of all the circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Du56134 Decided April 28, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du56134, Apr. 28, 2017). In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff was working in C from February 1, 1982 to Nov. 2, 2016; the Plaintiff was receiving education on the types of occupations from February 22, 1982 to August 22, 1982; the Plaintiff was working in the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the 1984 to April 5, 198.

arrow