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

A. From June 1995 to December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff worked as a mining department at the Korea Coal Corporation Korea Coal Corporation for about 19 years.

B. On April 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the infection hospital affiliated with the Infection University as being in charge of the upper right, and as being in charge of the infection of the outer side of the upper right and the outer side of the right control (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

C. The plaintiff is the above A.

On June 30, 2017, the Defendant applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s service. The Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s service.

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1, fact-finding with respect to the director of the Korea Coal Corporation, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the result of the examination of the medical record entrusted to the head of Seoul Hospital affiliated with the Macheon-do University, which shows the overall purport of the arguments, is as follows. The plaintiff had been receiving medical treatment from medical institutions such as Hanwon, etc. since he left the Masung Mining Center since he had a pain on the right blue. The plaintiff was likely to suffer from the disease of this case before receiving the examination of the disease of this case at the Masung Hospital affiliated with the Human Institute. The court's appraisal seems to have conducted the business of the plaintiff's repeated shock while working in the Masung Mining Center (the defendant does not dispute this part). The plaintiff's elbane state appears to have been changed compared to that observed by the general public in the same age group.