logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.18 2014구단1195
요양불승인처분취소
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 August 22, 2008, when the Plaintiff became a member of the local-level comprehensive management company (hereinafter “non-party company”) and was working as a security guard for the sub-nam-si B apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) managed by the non-party company, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a “brain color” (hereinafter “the injury of this case”) and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on March 6, 2013 after being discovered in the 412 Dong guard room of the apartment of this case and transferred the apartment of this case to the hospital on December 14, 2012.

B. On July 15, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the special burden factors (e.g., rapid change of work environment, increase of work, overwork, stress, etc.) that can be recognized as brain-related diseases in light of the Plaintiff’s work ability and duty, are difficult to recognize the relevance to the Plaintiff’s work, and it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the work and the injury of the instant case, since it is judged that there was a natural aggravation of existing diseases, and it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the work and the injury of the instant case

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination, but was dismissed on November 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, and 7 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s alleged security guards’ nature, it cannot be deemed as a normal recess hours, and even if the Plaintiff’s average work hours per week exceed 70 hours per week an average of 60 hours per week (average of 64 hours per week during 4 weeks prior to the outbreak of 70 hours), the instant injury or disease is highly related to their duties in accordance with the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification that provides that the work-related relationship is strong, and the Plaintiff’s physical disability and long-term work hours due to 24 hours per week shift work.

arrow