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

A. On September 29, 2015, the Plaintiff is a worker who became a member of a business establishment located in the Guri-si C (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) and has been in charge of business and fishery products processing at the business establishment located in the Guri-si.

B. Around November 26, 2017, around 19:45, the Plaintiff’s Eastern Workers D, while engaging in a dispute with the Plaintiff in front of the instant workplace, went beyond the Plaintiff’s left side bridge. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured on the left side bridge.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the aggregate of the senior executive members, the left-hand pelle,” and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant. However, on May 15, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the assault is likely to cause private sentiment to the other party without relation to his/her duties.”

The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition. On October 18, 2018, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination according to the results of deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee stating, “The Plaintiff and D were assaulted during dialogues that may cause private appraisal to the other party beyond the limit of work and work, and this assault is not inherent in the Plaintiff’s work or the risks accompanying the Plaintiff’s work are not realized, but is expected by the Plaintiff and D’s private appraisal.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant accident was based on the private relationship between the Plaintiff and D.

It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act was caused by stimulate or attempting the other party beyond the scope of his/her duties.

Rather, the instant accident is a risk inherent in, or ordinarily accompanying, human relations or duties in the workplace.