2. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2001 is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. Since the plaintiff started to work as a street cleaners belonging to the Senior Viewing Service on October 25, 1983, he transferred his work to the 1 Dong office in Bocheon-si on January 20, 1995, and retired on August 31, 2001.

B. Around August 191, 191, the Plaintiff appeared in Myanmar with a size of melting eggs on face, face, arms, etc., and thereafter there were symptoms gradually spreading to telegraph thereafter. The Plaintiff first received treatment in the Seoul National University Hospital under the diagnosis that it was a white shotum from March 15, 2000. On May 1, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that the above disease was a white shotum and caused by the Plaintiff’s waste collection work, and filed an application for medical care with the Defendant.

C. On May 30, 2001, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application for medical care on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s above-mentioned disease cannot be deemed an occupational disease.

[o] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 1

2. Determination:

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff has worked as a street cleaners for about 18 years and has been working for collecting industrial wastes other than household garbage as a hand, and there have been many cases where the Plaintiff worked in a state of being exposed to sunbeams during long-time hours. The Plaintiff’s white dust is an occupational disease caused by the above poor working environment and exposure to long-term hours, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition

(1) From October 25, 1983, the Plaintiff was working as a sanitation worker belonging to the elderly viewing service and was working as a sanitation worker belonging to the Hancheon-si Office from January 20, 1995 when he was working as a sanitation worker belonging to the Hancheon-si Office from January 20, 1995 when he was working as a sanitation worker belonging to the Bocheon-si Office, Bocheon-gu, 1995, and was leading to handkles and collected garbage in the commercial area in the market. The Plaintiff collected garbage in the commercial area in the commercial area from 13:0 to 16:00 p.m. while working as a sanitation worker for the elderly viewing service.

The plaintiff's street cleaners, such as the plaintiff, applied it to the case where the sunbeams are applied to the case where they are exposed to sunbeams, because they were put to the sunlights only, and they were exposed to the sunlights as they are. In addition, even when they are compressed by removing garbage caused by the removal of garbage from the cleaning vehicle, there are many cases where garbage directly contacted the body because they did not report the booming.

(2) Park Jong-dae, who was employed as a street cleaners belonging to the same job category as the plaintiff (from May 3, 1979 to July 20, 2001), has been affected by the brupt of the signs of labor that appear on several parts of the body, and the brush (which has been in office since 1992 to the present) has also been affected by the brupt of the signs of labor that appear on the bridge.

(3) Medical opinions on the causes, etc. of the outbreak of lebism are as follows:

(A) The Defendant’s advisory opinion is not recognized as having a relation to ordinary work due to an unidentified disease where the color of the skin other than Melel was destroyed in a sel on a bruthal basis, and the occurrence of a white half of which occurs in the skin. However, although it is known that some of the people in contact with TNol compounds may have a white half of which is similar to a white half of which compounds were contacted, it cannot be confirmed whether the occurrence occurred in the street cleaners, etc.

(b)The head of the Bosasan Hospital: The causes of the outbreak of Masabababababababababababa; however, physical disorder such as stress, or luminous images, etc. may serve as a preserved factor of the outbreak of Masababababa. The disease explained up to now has a positive force on immunity (incabababababababa caused by the outbreak of self-resistant resistance) (e.g., the destruction of cells or functions of cells other than Melelabababababababa), the neababababa (e.g., the destruction of cells that occurred in the process of the formation of cells, not Melababababa

(c)Seoul National University Hospital Head: Not yet known as the cause of the outbreak of lebrutosis, and it is known that i.e., immunity, self-destructive mechanism, and nebalism are known. Although it is not easy to directly refer to the cause of the long time exposure and lebrutism in sunbeams, there is a high possibility that lebrutism occurred after the exposure of sunbeams. In the case of the Plaintiff, it is impossible to make an absolute determination because the cause of the lebrutism is not accurately known, but if the exposure was exposed to an excessive lebrut line for a long time, the exposure caused multiple lebrutism along with its inherent cause.

(d)The President of the Korea Medical Association: The outbreak causes of lebrus still are presumed to be an aesthetic and genetic relationship. Excessive sunbeams do not generate a lebrusity, provided that the skin from which lebrusity has occurred is easy to put a lebrusic image by means of sunbeams, so it is difficult to exclude the possibility that such work would lead to the aggravation of lebrus caused by lebrus. The treatment of lebrus must not be complete, but be prevented from being damaged by sunbeams of the skin from which lebrus have occurred, and may attempt to treat lebrusic lebrus, stedys, and external surgery.

[o] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 3, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 and 7, 1, 2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 6 and 7, 2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2 of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3

(c) Markets:

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999) refers to a disease caused by the worker's occupational injury during the performance of his/her duties. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disease. However, such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disease when considering all the circumstances related to the worker's duties. Furthermore, even if the medical cause is not clearly revealed, it seems that the disease is closely related to the work environment or the work contents of the worker, and therefore, if it seems that the workplace caused or aggravated the disease due to the overlap with the main cause of the work (including the case where the disease is aggravated rapidly above the natural speed).

However, according to the above facts, although the causes of the outbreak of the lebrus are not clearly clearly identified, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff's exposure to the lebrus line for the cleaning of waste is a cause of causing the plaintiff's inherent causes of the plaintiff's exposure to the lebrus line with the plaintiff's internal causes and causing the plaintiff's lebrus or the plaintiff's lebrus, at least, aggravated the lebrus of the lebrus by exposure to the lebrus, etc. after being exposed to the lebrus, and there are cases where the symptoms aggravated due to exposure to the lebrus, etc. of the lebrus, in the case of a person who already contracted the lebrusiums.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's application for medical care is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the illegal disposition of this case and cancelling it.

Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Judge)