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

가. 원고는 2016. 5. 18. 공사현장에서 유로폼 해체작업을 하다가 해체가 잘 되지 않아 양팔을 사용하여 힘을 가하는 순간 유로폼에 걸어두었던 빠루가 튕겨져 나오면서 원고의 어깨를 충격하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)로 인한 ‘우측 견관절 염좌’(이하 ‘기승인상병’이라 한다)로 피고에서 업무상 재해로 승인받아 요양하던 중 ‘우측 견관절 회전근개 파열’(이하 ‘이 사건 추가상병’이라 한다) 진단을 받은 후 피고에 추가상병 신청을 하였다.

B. On July 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the Plaintiff approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on the result of the review of the examination of the outdoor position and the advice that “it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the disaster, as it is judged to be a low-income disease due to the Round ETRI’s observation on July 1, 2016, and the fact that the instant additional injury and disease is not in proximate causal relation with the instant accident or the existing approval branch.”

C. The plaintiff filed a request for examination with the defendant, however, the defendant observed the plaintiff's opinion on the additional disease in this case according to the plaintiff's video data opinion, but there are chronic changes following the age increase, such as the formation of the frame of the check, and the opinion suggesting the damage of urgency due to credit is not observed. Considering the volume of the heat and the degree of the influence of the exposure, it is judged to be the savyal saf that is not the acute safism due to credit, rather than the acute safism due to credit. Therefore, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relationship between the accident in this case and the additional disease in this case.

‘The decision to dismiss the plaintiff's request for examination based on the result of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is about 17 years as a type of mold.