logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.08.18 2015구단962
요양급여불승인결정의처분취소
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 was diagnosed as “the escape certificate of a memorial signboard No. 5-6 of the Gyeongyeong-gu” (hereinafter “the injury and disease in this case”) while performing the removal work of garbage as a street cleaners belonging to the viewing and viewing company.

B. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant injury and disease were caused by the natural transitional change of the existing disease and that the proximate causal relation with the work is not recognized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a waste removal work on April 9, 2013, while working as a street cleaners from November 1, 200 to the door-to-door viewing on the street cleaners and placing garbage bags, smoke, etc. on the collecting vehicle repeatedly for 13 years.

He was suffering from pain on the neck, was treated at a hospital after being treated, but on October 24, 2013, he was placed with a garbage bag of 100 L and was reatted.

Therefore, since the injury or disease of this case was caused by the above physical burden or aggravated due to such duty, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the evidence and the evidence mentioned above mentioned above as well as the evidence mentioned in subparagraphs 1 through 5, 7, and 10.

1) The Plaintiff’s work period and work form are as follows. On November 1, 200, the Plaintiff was employed as a street cleaners for the viewing of literature and cleaning work for the removal of household garbage and the distance cleaning work (the head of the Security Department of Waste while in charge of the removal of garbage) retired on September 30, 2014.

The Plaintiff worked from 07:30 to 17:00 of the ordinary day, and from 08:0 to 13:30 of the Saturdays, and recess hours are from 12:00 to 13:00.

arrow