(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.01.23 2018구단161

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) 대전지방법원 2020.01.23 2018구단161

요양급여 및 휴업금여(최소분) 불승인처분취소

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. From October 11, 2016 to March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff (B) performed the manufacturing business of automobile parts in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on the ground that “The Plaintiff repeated the work of raising and unloading motor vehicle parts on the presses, and caused pains on the lub and lubows.” (No. 4-5) accompanied by a luxical fruit on the right side, the outer upper part of the right side, the luxon salt, the luxin salt, the luxal ppuri, and any other conical obstacle (No. 4-5).”

C. On December 14, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had a significant burden on the parts of the elbow because of repeated actions, such as cutting down or transporting the parts, which caused the Plaintiff to buy and conduct the inspection, and that there was a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and disease. However, even though the Plaintiff handled part of the weight, the period of work was short of about five months from October 2016 to about five months, and the medical treatment was confirmed on the part of the company of this case was conducted around October 2007, the degree and frequency of handling heavy substances, and as such, it is difficult to view that the degree of handling heavy substances and the degree of causing the injury and disease on the part of the parts of the company of this case was strengthd, and thus, the Defendant did not recognize the proximate causal relation between the duty of care in this case and the injury and disease of this case (hereinafter “the above injury and disease”).

(2) The grounds for recognition are as follows: (a) the fact that there is no dispute over the instant injury and disease; (b) Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 4 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.01.23 2018구단161

-전주지방법원 2020.04.08 2019구단224

-서울행정법원 2015.10.16 2014구단55253

-서울행정법원 2017.04.28 2016구단22356

-광주지방법원 2016.09.09 2015가합53003