logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.11.06 2019구단64832
추가상병불승인처분취소
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 July 23, 2004, while serving as an employee of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”), the Plaintiff was subject to a traffic accident while moving to the site after receiving a bus breakdown report on July 14, 2004 (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff was recognized as a disability grade of Grade 14 with respect to “the number of light signboards escape certificates No. 4-5” (hereinafter “the instant weather-approval disease”) by the Defendant, after receiving medical care from the Defendant until June 20, 205, after receiving medical care until June 20, 2005.

B. After that, on August 23, 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the “Plag escape certificate No. 5-6” (hereinafter “Plag escape certificate”), and applied for additional injury and additional medical care to the Defendant for the instant injury and disease. However, on September 6, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). “The Plaintiff’s injury and disease was observed in the MlaI in 2005, and the PlaI’s observation in 2018, which was enforced in 2018, is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the instant accident since it was determined in the process of aging and the changes in the state of departure due to the lapse of time,” based on the Defendant’s medical opinion from the Defendant’s advisory counsel.

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but the petition for review was dismissed on November 16, 2018, and the petition for review was filed again, but the petition for review was dismissed on April 18, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was observed in light of the Plaintiff’s MI video taken after the instant accident in around 2005, and the injury and disease of the instant application was another occupational accident that occurred after the instant accident.

arrow