logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.10.17 2017구단34141
재요양불승인처분취소
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 February 28, 1990, when the Plaintiff was employed as an employee of the Daewoo Shipbuilding Marine Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was faced with knenee on the left-hand knee on the left-hand knee (hereinafter “instant occupational accident”) due to the accident that he was on board knee on February 14, 1990 when he was employed as an employee of the Daewoo Shipbuilding Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and was subject to the first medical care and re-medical care until April 28, 2003, and the disability grade of class 12 was granted from the Defendant.

B. After that, on November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care on the ground that there is a need for a correction of the human mission to both sides of the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

C. However, on November 28, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for additional medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the basis of a medical advisory opinion stating that “It is not reasonable for the Plaintiff to refund the official duties of the mission of the Republic of Korea on both sides of slots due to the instant weather approval, and in simple radiation, it is reasonable to approve the Plaintiff’s application for additional medical care as it is not severe.”

The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on February 3, 2017, but the request for review was dismissed on March 22, 2017, and the request for review was again filed on June 4, 2017, but the request for review was dismissed on July 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 7, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After the occurrence of the instant occupational accident, the Plaintiff’s assertion gradually aggravated the side race and pains of both sides, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed from the Plaintiff’s principal physician as the Defendant’s knee-free disease in both sides (hereinafter “the instant additional medical care application”). This is against both sides.

arrow