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

around June 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant “the first application for medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits” containing the following contents:

D E EB C / the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on July 31, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s injury and disease claimed by the Plaintiff (or injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury to the left-hand side) is merely natural aggravation of personal diseases, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with their duties.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) Whether the disposition of the occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by the worker’s occupational accident during the performance of his/her duties, and there is a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease; and such causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting the causal relationship; and even if it is not necessarily required to prove clearly medical and natural science, a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease should be inferred in consideration of all the circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002). Even according to the MDR image of the Plaintiff on February 23, 2015 on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff expressed extreme e.g., extreme e., formation of a small size, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e