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

A. On December 6, 2013, at the construction site of the new road-related facility B (hereinafter “instant disaster”), the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the injury of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the 2, 3, 4, 5 parts of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part, the parts of the upper part, the parts of the upper part, the parts of the upper part, the parts of the upper part, the parts of the upper part, the parts of the upper part, and the parts of the upper part of the composite part, and the medical treatment by January 2, 2016.

B. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff received an additional diagnosis of “vertebrate chronism” (hereinafter “instant additional injury and disease”) between No. 5-Yacheon No. 1, and applied for the approval of the additional injury and disease to the Defendant. On December 18, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the instant additional injury and the structural frame, etc. caused by the instant disaster.

C. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this, and the defendant and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee made a review and a request for reexamination, but all of them were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Eul 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disaster occurred and caused the instant accident to go beyond the left engine crisis and undergo the instant continuous surgery on six consecutive occasions, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff continued to suffer unreasonable force on one side while undergoing a long-term medical treatment, and thus, the Plaintiff became subject to the instant additional disease due to the sudden aggravation of the state of her state of her state of influence more than the natural transitional speed.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the instant additional branch and the instant accident, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case should be revoked as unlawful.

(b) Determination 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means an occupational accident resulting from the worker’s work while on duty.