logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.02.21 2017구단10527
요양불승인처분 취소
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 30, 2016, while becoming a member of the Gereal factory B (hereinafter “Sereal company”) and performing the duties of the TBR driver, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits under the diagnosis of the name of the sick and wounded in the process of replacing the KBR operator (400km) around 08:30 on January 30, 2016.

B. However, on May 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) presumed that the instant injury and disease occurred in the situation of the applicant’s statement (disaster circumstances); (b) however, in the medical record that was first submitted after the pain, the Defendant did not discover symptoms due to acute exposure (radioactive ray and neological disorder) and appealed only to the main symptoms; and (c) was not engaged in duties after January 30, 2016, which is the date of the accident the applicant stated in the petition, because it was difficult to see the correlation between the time of the accident and the time of the accident; and (d) issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there was no proximate causal link between the work and the injury and the injury and disease because it was difficult to see the causal link between the work at the time of the accident.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Defendant on November 2, 2016, but the Defendant dismissed the request. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the request on March 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. On January 30, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff was using a net force while performing the replacement work with a weight of at least 400 km from January 30, 2016; and (b) the instant injury and disease occurred; (c) thus, proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the injury and disease was recognized.

arrow