logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.09.05 2018구단71949
휴업급여부지급처분취소
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 October 7, 200, while working in the National Health Insurance Corporation, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with “end-end identification card” on October 7, 200, and obtained approval for medical care on June 14, 2004, and thereafter, was approved as additional injury-disease (hereinafter “the instant injury-disease” in total with additional injury-type identification card), and received medical care from October 7, 200 to September 30, 201.

B. The Plaintiff was paid temporary layoff benefits from the Defendant from November 1, 200 to April 30, 2018.

C. On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of temporary layoff benefits for a period from May 1, 2018 to May 15, 2018. However, the Defendant paid the benefits only for the days of actual delivery based on a medical opinion that the Plaintiff would be eligible for employment treatment from May 1, 2018 as a result of the Consultative Society’s advice on May 16, 2018.

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s request for review was dismissed on August 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made from October 200 to 15 years, and the Plaintiff underwent kidney surgery on June 20, 2015, and continued to undergo kidney surgery due to kidne’s side effects, and thereafter, exempted control, anti-raid agents, etc.

In addition, the plaintiff should administer urology and sulin therapy at least once a day due to the side effects of immunodeficiency therapy, and it is virtually impossible to conduct economic activities until now due to the long blood urology and urology.

Unlike this, it was done on the premise that the plaintiff's employment is possible.

arrow