logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.04.08 2019구단224
상병일부불승인처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of a corporation B, who is engaged in bus operation.

B. On June 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the Jeonbuk University Hospital as “the vertebal vertea (No. 4 in vertebath) accompanied by the neutism No. 3-4 in vertebathal disease, and the clifathal and confathal disease accompanied by the nephism No. 4-5 in celebathal disease,” and filed an application for medical care benefits for the above injury and disease with the Defendant on June 29, 2018.

C. On August 17, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of part of the injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground of the determination by the C Committee that there is a large personal cause of disease with respect to the critical and conical signboard disability “A disposition of approval for medical care on the need and conical signboard disability No. 3-4 accompanied by the New Egyptism No. 3-4, but accompanied by the Egyptism (No. 4), and No. 4-5, the Egyptism (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and that there is no proximate causal relation between the injury and disease. D. Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee rendered a request for reexamination on September 5, 2018, for the reexamination on the instant injury and disease, and it is not recognized that there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s personal injury and disease’s disease’s thirrhetorical disease’s disease’s thirical causal relation.

"The plaintiff's request for review was dismissed on the ground of this ruling."

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the entire argument of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was legitimate, not only caused repeated bus driving operations for a long time, but also caused a breakdown or a buffer device from November 2016.

arrow