logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.22 2015구단2431
요양급여불승인처분취소
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. On September 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on October 1, 2014, asserting that: (a) Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. worked as a one-time worker at the construction site of the vehicle test dong, which is located in the Gyeonggi-dong, Gyeonggi-dong, which was performed by Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd.; (b) on September 20, 2014, when the operation of cutting a concrete cutting machine on a mixed truck, there was a pain; and (c) a serious pain occurred on the hand floor after the dynamic machine work, and (d) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “Week-in salt, each of the hand tunnel,” and (d) the Defendant was diagnosed.

B. As to this, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition, on November 17, 2014, which rejected medical care against the Plaintiff on the ground that it was an existing chronic disease that is difficult to generate due to short-term work force, on the grounds that it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize the Plaintiff to receive medical care, as it was diagnosed by the hospital more than five days after the time of disaster is unclear.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on June 26, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's concrete cutting machine was cut off to mixed truck, and there was a pain in the lusium. Since severe pains occurred on the hand floor after the previous lusium work, which caused the injury and disease in this case due to occupational accidents, the disposition of this case which was not approved for medical care is unlawful.

B. On September 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was in excess of the number of 6, 7, 13-1 through 4, and 17 through 39 (including paper numbers) on the sole basis of each item of Gap’s 6, 13-1 through 4, and Gap’s 17-39 (including paper numbers)

It is difficult to recognize that serious pains have occurred on the floor of the hand after the work of the dynamics or the dynamics.

arrow