logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.05.13 2019구단65415
장해급여부지급처분취소
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 May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed both mixed lusium and both sides of noise noise noise sources (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant injury and disease”), and filed an application for the payment of disability benefits with the Defendant, asserting that the Plaintiff was exposed to noise and caused the instant injury and disease by being exposed to noise in the course of collecting coal as a mine worker.

B. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability benefit level on the ground that “The noise exposure experience objectively confirmed by the Plaintiff is not verified to the extent of three years prescribed by relevant statutes, but the Plaintiff’s honest test data, transfer personal history, past medical history, etc. are combined, and the 47 and right 49-to the left-hand level on the inspection of the Maternity, and the Maternity of the letter that is accompanied by the small and medium Maternity, shall be seen as the previous prosecutor, etc., and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the work of the instant upper branch,” so it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the work of the instant upper branch.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed a request for an examination with the defendant on January 16, 2019, but the request for examination was dismissed. The plaintiff again filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on March 14, 2019, but the request for reexamination was dismissed.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the injury or disease of this case falls under the noise in the state of noise caused by the noise in the light of coal for a long time, or that, due to such noise or noise in the state of distress, the elderly in the state of distress has reached the current state of difficulty since the elderly in the state of distress proceeds more than the natural progress speed.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Article 5. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

arrow