logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.22 2015누65881
장해등급결정처분취소
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

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). As such, it shall accept this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part that is dismissed or added is that " March 5, 2014" in the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is "as of March 6, 2014," which is "as of March 6, 2014."

According to Gap evidence No. 2, the prescription date on March 5, 2014 and the date the prosecutor conducted on March 6, 2014.

"However, from the 16th to the 16th one of the 5th decisions of the first instance court are as follows:

According to the evidence evidence No. 2 of "A", the plaintiff showed the result of 44% of the normal value (400m), 156 meters from the 6-minute lapsy performed at the time of B Hospital on March 6, 2014, and when the movement to walk six minutes starts, the plaintiff complained of the difficulty in respiratory (Borg 04) at the time of the completion of the movement to walk without the difficulty in respiratory (97%), and it can be acknowledged that the above examination conducted without any change, and that the blood pressure and beer did not change. In relation to the above examination, the President of the Korean Medical Association responded to the fact-finding of this Court that "the subjective respiratory disorder disorder disorder that the plaintiff complained of, was caused by an extra-pulmonary disability, and thus, it cannot be considered that the plaintiff's disability grade cannot be reflected in the part pertaining to the disability grade of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the plaintiff's disability grade cannot be reflected in the part pertaining to the disability grade of the plaintiff.

arrow