Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed as “satisfying and salt on the side side of the well-known area, salt and salt outside the right control area, side side of the right control area, satisfy to the right control area, satfy to the left side, satfy to the left side of the right control area, and the Defendant’s medical care on September 5, 2017 with the approval of medical care for the above sick person until March 31, 2019.

B. On the other hand, on January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for additional injury and disease to the Defendant upon the diagnosis of “the air conditioning part of the back part of the Madern, both sides of the shoulder shacker, and both sides of the shoulder shacker,” but on March 28, 2019, the Defendant applied for additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, on the ground that “the additional injury and disease applied as a result of the MRI review is difficult to be recognized as related to a disaster and a person due to a madal disease” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(c)

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant, but the Plaintiff’s request for review was dismissed on July 12, 2019, and the Plaintiff’s request for review against the Review Committee on Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance was dismissed on December 27, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff performed physical labor with high-Robbery which imposes an excessive burden on the ground of the mining center and the construction site, and each of the of the of the instant wounds constitutes a body part closely related to the control of the master and the vice-chief of the upper-ranking disease, as the vice-chief of the shoulder.

In light of these circumstances, even if the Plaintiff’s individual disease of this case is part of the nature of a chronic disease, it is deemed to have a considerable causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s work and his/her current status as it has deteriorated beyond the natural progress due to his/her work. However, the disposition of this case based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b).