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

가. 원고는 2016. 6.경부터 B 진입도로 1공구 교량 토목공사 현장에서 용접공으로 근무하였는데, 2016. 10. 1. 현장 정리정돈 작업을 지시받아 이를 마치고 기다리다가 C가 굴착장비인 비트의 초경을 해체하고 있는 것을 보고 C를 도와 산소용접기로 비트에 박힌 초경을 빼내기 위해 가열하던 중 초경 이 튕겨져 나와 원고의 안면부를 강타하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생하였다.

The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant by suffering injury of the “alleys, closeds, and interior walls of the part in which the details of the ductal and inner frame are unknown” due to the instant accident, and of the “alleys, closeds, and inner walls of the left side, and the structural frame, closeds, and face of the left side.”

B. On January 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the application for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant accident was an accident that occurred in the course of an individual’s private purpose and has no causal relation with his/her duties” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review to the Defendant, but dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a victim of injury caused by the instant accident while dismantling a bits in accordance with C’s instruction, and did not know that the instant act was a larceny unrelated to C’s business. There was no conspiracy with C. Thus, the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident as it occurred while it was either an act while performing his/her duties or an necessary incidental act incidental to his/her duties.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. We examine the judgment, and if the plaintiff thought it as the work to separate the portrait from the bit, the date of the accident in this case.