logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.01.30 2018구단75255
추가상병불승인처분취소
Text

1. On August 23, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of additional injury and disease approval against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2015, while working as a road repair personnel under the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office, the Plaintiff is performing signalling service at the rear of the vehicle in the process of collecting fallings of the road on May 20, 2015.

On June 15, 2015, the vehicle was diagnosed by the knee-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-

B. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant regarding “stegra-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-ste-sim on the left side” and received medical care approval from the Defendant until August 8, 2018.

C. On July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the additional name of the Plaintiff’s injury and disease in the preparatory document (as at the first date of pleading on April 4, 2019) dated November 21, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) was “an annual disability, the subsequent bridge (M9486),” and used a mixture of several injury and disease in relation to the additional injury and disease in the process of the lawsuit, such as the state in which the additional name of the Plaintiff’s injury and disease was not recovered, e.g., an annual e., an annual e., the e., the e., the e., the e., additional name of the Plaintiff’s injury and disease, which was submitted under the name of the court (as at the date of pleading on December 3, 2019) was “an additional opinion on the e.g., the e., additional opinion on the e., the son’s injury and disease.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion exists with respect to the instant injury, and the Plaintiff did not appeal or receive medical treatment prior to the occurrence of the instant accident.

arrow