Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

April 5, 2018

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Gudan64029 decided November 30, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on October 4, 2016 is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 3 through 20). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 2 to 9). Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Relevant medical opinions, appraisal results, etc.;

1) Plaintiff’s opinion

On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a “business-related assessment report” as of April 5, 2016. According to that, the Plaintiff issued a “business-related assessment report” as of 21 years from coal mine area to undergo nuclear medical examination, diagnosis, and medical examination. Based on the result, the hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff as “Radon Radon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon 2016.

2) Results of the special medical examination by the △▽university Hospital

On June 9, 2016, 2016 at the request of the Defendant, the △△ University Hospital conducted a special medical examination against the Plaintiff. A week 1 against the Plaintiff of the said hospital was not observed as a result of the cooling test.

3) Opinions of the Defendant’s advisers

In the process of the instant disposition and the instant request for review, the Defendant’s advisory opinions presented to the effect that “the result of the cooling test does not meet the criteria for the diagnosis of injury and disease of the Radon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Ma

4) Results of a request for appraisal by the court of first instance

The court of first instance entrusted the Plaintiff with the physical appraisal against the Director General of the Do governor-Governing Province, and the appraisal commission did not confirm the Plaintiff’s opinion on the confession in the cooling House.” “The Plaintiff appears to have shown symptoms, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s loss was caused by the use of the vibration tools during the past 20 years.” However, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s present situation is deemed to be the degree that the Defendant’s medical treatment did not meet the criteria for the medical care presented, and that there was a problem in the labor ability remaining after the need for medical treatment,” and “The fact that there was a large number of symptoms in the country without any particular medical treatment, and even after a considerable period of time after the suspension of the exposure to the vibration, the fact that the symptoms occurred after the lapse of 20 years after the suspension of the work cannot be considered as the grounds for denial of business-related nature. However, it is difficult to determine that the Plaintiff’s ability to provide medical treatment is a situation that does not fall under the Plaintiff’s present condition of injury rather than the Plaintiff’s ability to provide treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of a request for appraisal to the Director General of the Do governor of the court of first instance to Do governor-Governing Province

D. Determination

In full view of the Plaintiff’s opinions and the purport of the first instance court’s appraisal commission, it is recognized that there exist symptoms that may lead to the Plaintiff’s reduction of both hands-out loss and the burden of heavy burden on the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff appears to have engaged in work by using tools containing vibration while working as luminous source in light of long-term coal mines, etc.; and (b) other factors causing the above symptoms, such as self-exempt diseases, are not discovered through blood examination against the Plaintiff; (c) it is reasonable to deem that the above symptoms of the Plaintiff are reasonable to have a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work performed by the Plaintiff while working as luminous source; and (d) it is difficult to readily deny the above proximate causal relation solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s symptoms lapse 20 years or more from the time of the Plaintiff’s performance of the above duties until the time of diagnosis as the disease in this case. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the above symptoms of the Plaintiff constitute an occupational disease under Article 34(1) and (3) [Attachment 3]12(a) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that Radar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Mad, but the Defendant’s work process guidelines are essential elements to determine the change of radar Madar Madar Madar as a result of the Defendant’s test. However, it is difficult to deny the existence of radar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s business and the instant injury and disease without the recognition of the injury and disease.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and cancelling the disposition of this case.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Method: (a) to observe the changes in skin color that appear after having more than 30 minutes of rest in the interior of 20-23°C; and (b) to determine the existence of Rano ex post facto group by observing the changes in skin color that appear in the 10°C after having five minutes of rest in the indoors of 20-23°C.