logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.12.29 2016구단19152
공무상요양불승인처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On September 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical treatment for official duties with the Defendant on September 29, 2015, on the ground that the accident was caused by a person who was satisfed during the process of replacing office light light at the Suwon Police Station B District C Public Security Center in Suwon Police Station (hereinafter “instant accident”) and fell from approximately 120cm to the office floor at a height of about 120cm (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On December 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the said application on the ground that it is difficult to deem the instant injury and disease to have a proximate causal relation with the official duties.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the injury and disease of the Plaintiff asserted in the instant case occurred due to the instant accident or the rapid aggravation of the existing disease, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The “official disease or injury” as prescribed by Article 35 of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to the disease or injury caused by official duty while performing official duty. As such, there should be causation between official duty and disease or injury, and the causal relationship should be attested by the party asserting it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du7335, Dec. 13, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu295, May 25, 1990). It is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant injury and disease was caused by the instant accident or that the existing disease was aggravated rapidly beyond the natural progress, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, if the evidence No. 4 of this Court and the entire purport of the argument is seen as the result of the request for the examination of the medical records to Seoul Medical Center, the Plaintiff’s injury and disease of this case merely occurred due to the sedentary disease, not from the accident of this case, and the injury and disease of this case, which were taken on October 8, 2014, No. 7-scarle 1 of the Gyeong-Scar, which were taken on October 8, 2014.

arrow