logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.07.03 2018누55854
공무상요양불승인처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] The 3th 4th 4th m "287 boxes" are 287 boxes (172 boxes, 55 boxes, 60 backbing boxes). The 3rd 4th m "287 boxes."

The 3rd and 6th of the 5th of the 6th, “The Plaintiff loaded 60 boxes containing the back of the warehouse alone while moving them to the front line of the warehouse.” The 4th, “The Plaintiff loaded 172 boxes of body and 55 boxes of baseed with the 172 boxes of body and 85 boxes of baseed with the 8th of the warehouse, while the Plaintiff, alone, loaded 60 boxes of the 8th of the 8th of the warehouse, on the front line of the warehouse, was carrying 60 boxes of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 196th of the 8th of the 8th of the 196th of the 8th of the 8th of the 196th of the 19

The third-party 11 to 15 shall be as follows:

(2) On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) while working at the Korea Army Academy at Armed Forces before the occurrence of the instant injury and the health insurance medical care benefits item A; (b) on August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical care for official duties by being subjected to a traffic accident that was caused by a stop signal while on board the F military bus operated by the Korea Army Academy at Army with an aim of transporting examinees; and (c) on November 23, 2012, the Defendant did not dispute the decision to grant approval on the postponum and the postponum base on June 26, 2014 (No. 5-6, 6-7, 3-4, 4-5, 3-5, 4-5, and 4-5, 3-4, 4-5, and 4-5).

B. The plaintiff

arrow