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

A. From August 16, 2011, the Plaintiff mainly engaged in the business of packaging and transporting products to a person who has worked in a company B.

B. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant, asserting that the nuclear escape evidence was created between No. 5-YY No. 1 on the part of the Plaintiff who continued to perform the work that imposes a burden on Heluri. However, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition on August 30, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff appears to have been engaged in the work that imposes a burden on Heluri, but, on November 19, 2013, an expansion of less than the conical signboards between No. 5-TY No. 1 on the part of his own official screen (MRI) taken on the part of the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, and the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the Asia University Hospital Hospital of this Court, the defendant's advisory opinion revealed that the plaintiff's advisory opinion is that the number of nuclear escape certificates between No. 5-2000 and No. 1 in his/her own official image (MRI) is confirmed, and the opinion of this court also recognized the same diagnosis. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff has an injury or disease of the hydro-Yeuk-20, No. 5-1 in his/her own image image

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff is only limited to less than the conical expansion of the conical signboards No. 5 - 1 in the 1st century, must be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.