(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.02.11 2012구단24255

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.02.11 2012구단24255

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 June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff joined a labor force company for the labor force industry (hereinafter “labor force industry”) and worked until January 31, 201 at the site of the new construction of a sports center for B-sports.

B. On March 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed the first application and disposition 1) to the Defendant on March 3, 2011, for the following reasons: “The Plaintiff’s damage to the slick Zone and the outer side of the slick Zone, the drilling wall part of the slick Zone under the slick Zone, the slick Zone, and the slick Zone” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant injury”).

Around 15:00 on January 28, 201, an application for medical care benefits was filed in relation to the instant construction site (the first ground for the application). At around 15:00 on January 28, 201, the Defendant rendered a disposition to grant medical care benefits for the following reasons to the Plaintiff on March 11, 201, for the following reasons.

[1] The reasons for the first disposition is that the witness was confirmed at the time of the application, and the witness was denied, and the date of the accident was claimed on January 28, 201. However, the medical records of the medical institution first treated on February 7, 2011 do not have objective grounds to confirm the accurate disaster date and circumstances, and medical opinions on the applicant's disease are difficult. The medical records of the medical institution first treated on February 7, 2011, "It is difficult to see that the circumstance of the accident seems to contribute to the external side of the side of the accident, etc., and the damage on the side of the side of the MRI appears to be an advanced composition in view of the composition of an anti-scent, etc., and there is no serious injury to the external side of the accident, and there is no serious injury to the external side of the accident."

On June 7, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted the following reasons and applied again for medical care benefits.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.08.18 2014구합958

-서울행정법원 2018.07.06 2017구단31708

-서울행정법원 2014.10.08 2012구단26657

-서울행정법원 2018.12.27 2018구단69618

-부산지방법원 2015.08.19 2015구단20279