logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.21 2018나2065461
직무상요양비 수급권 확인의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the defendant is liable to pay as the grounds for appeal in the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The defendant asserts that, as the grounds for appeal, the disease of the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be an excess in light of the contents, character, and workload of the plaintiff's work, and that the plaintiff's low-income disease significantly affected the outbreak of light training during the right-hand side, and therefore, it cannot be deemed to be a disease caused by duty of light training among the right-hand side of the plaintiff

B. However, in addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined at the court of first instance and the court of first instance (i.e., human resources support from H campus), i.e., (i) the Plaintiff was subject to partial personnel support from the H campus, but the Plaintiff did not obtain the Plaintiff’s duty of monitoring or controlling the Plaintiff’s performance of duties from around August 201 to around July 2015, when two or more persons have been performing their duties, (ii) the landscape management and cleaning duties at night, (iii) the day, night, and weekend (including holidays). (iv) the Plaintiff performed the landscape management and cleaning duties in addition to the landscape management and cleaning duties while living in the office of D campus, the Plaintiff performed the duty of monitoring or controlling the Plaintiff’s performance, (iv) the Plaintiff’s duty of monitoring or controlling the Plaintiff’s disease, and (v) the Plaintiff’s duty of training or controlling the Plaintiff’s disease, and (v) the Plaintiff’s performance of duties.

arrow