(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.25 2017구단82195

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.25 2017구단82195

공무상요양불승인처분취소

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. The Plaintiff is a person who was in charge of the compensation work at B Si.

B. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) was used on June 1, 2018:25, and was diagnosed by a medical institution (i.e., the detailed unknown closure of the connection, or (ii) cerebral typosis by the cirching; and (iii) applied for approval of medical care on June 26, 2017 for official duties.

C. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant: “The instant wound is known to have caused high blood pressure, urology, and urology due to a disease of which part of the brain was dead; in the event of the Plaintiff, from 2008 to 2017 on the health insurance benefit, he/she continuously received medical treatment “the two-type urology that is not accompanied by a complication, urology, urology that is not accompanied by a complication, and urology that is accompanied by a urology, urology, urology, and urology,” and the Plaintiff appears to have continuously received medical treatment “the two-type urology urology that is accompanied by a urology, urology,” and the health examination result of 2014 and 2015, 314 g/D 14 g/ 286 g/4 g/42 g/4 g/4 g/ glurology respectively, regardless of its natural pressure.

Based on the medical opinion, "the main cause of the injury or disease of this case is "the disposition of this case" that renders non-approval of medical care in the line of duty on the ground of the natural deterioration of low-income diseases.

D. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, which was dismissed. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, as stated in the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 3, and 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 has urinology and has been engaged in health management, such as providing meals to the Plaintiff and conducting daily exercise, due to the high cryls.

However, the urban planning facility compensation service, etc.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.08.29 2016가단32553

-서울행정법원 2016.12.15 2014구합74534

-서울행정법원 2018.06.14 2018구단54395

-서울행정법원 2018.10.25 2017구합78872

-서울행정법원 2020.09.09 2019구단73638