logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.02.19 2014구단17336
공무상요양추가상병기간연장거부처분취소
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 August 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, who served at the Busan Police Station B police box at Daejeon, provided medical care for official duties from August 25, 2013 to February 20, 2014, as “the frame (closed, closed, No. 6) of the cage of a single fage at the first place other than the cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage

B. On July 29, 2014, when the Plaintiff continued to provide medical treatment due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a result of MRI’s taking of MRI, and applied for an additional medical care and extension of the period for official duties. However, on August 25, 2014, the Defendant issued an application for approval of the additional medical care and extension of the period for official duties to the Defendant. On August 25, 2014, it is difficult to recognize the relationship between the instant accident and the instant accident on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s medical care was examined as a result of the Plaintiff’s examining the medical care details of the health insurance, and it is not appropriate to recognize the Plaintiff’s instant medical care and the instant injury as an additional disease due to a change in the active nature of official duties” (hereinafter “the extension of the period for official duties”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant injury occurred as the Plaintiff went beyond the left-hand side, and the Plaintiff applied for the approval of additional injury and extension of the period of the injury to the Defendant only after taking a photograph of the Plaintiff’s disease and obtaining a diagnosis of the instant injury, from August 26, 2013 to May 14, 2014, at DNA Council members from August 27, 2013, and from DNA Council members from August 27, 2013 to May 14, 2014.

Therefore, the injury and disease of this case are the accident of this case.

arrow