On January 4, 2016, the part of the defendant's non-approval disposition for additional injury to the plaintiff is revoked.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

The reason why this Court is used is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph (1). Thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The reason why this Court is used as to this part is that "each of the instant injury and disease" in Section 3, Section 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "any of the instant injury and disease", and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Section 2 of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the use of a clause as follows: therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

D. Determination

1) The term "occupational accident" under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational accident caused by a worker's performance of his/her duties, and there is a causal relationship between his/her duties and the disaster, but even if the existing disease is not directly related to his/her duties, if it becomes worse or becomes worse due to an occupational accident, etc. which occurred in connection with his/her duties, if it becomes worse or its symptoms occur, the causal relationship between his/her duties shall be deemed to exist. In such cases, the causal relationship shall be proved by the party asserting it, unless it is clearly proved by medical and natural science. However, considering all the circumstances such as the worker's health condition at the time of his/her employment and performance of duties, the occurrence circumstance, the content of the disease, and the progress of treatment, the causal relationship between his/her duties and the disease shall be deemed to exist (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du11646, Mar. 10,

2) Comprehensively taking account of all the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, it can be inferred that the 's 's 's 's 'sssculatory damage' among the injury of each of the injury of this case was realized only due to the rapid aggravation of the Plaintiff's existing disease beyond natural progress due to the instant accident. Therefore, it is deemed that there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff's work and the injury of 's 's 's 'ssculatory damage' among the injury of the injury of each of the injury of this case. Of the instant dispositions, the part concerning the 's 's s

① From July 17, 2013 to July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received treatment with vertebrate in which it is unknown. However, from that point, the Plaintiff did not receive any additional treatment with respect to clibials for about two years from the time the instant accident occurred to the time of the instant accident. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was performing clibling operations together with his employees in the mountainous district at the time of the instant accident. As such, it appears that there was no abnormal evidence to the extent that the Plaintiff caused clibling pains.

② The instant accident, while the Plaintiff carried out a tree removal work together with the same worker, is the Plaintiff’s back water and water, etc., which were cut from the upper part of the mountainous district, and was at the lower part of the mountainous district, and was at the lower part of the mountainous district. However, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s physical parts at the time of the instant accident were 25 meters high and the diameter was 30 centimeters high. In light of the size of the trees and the Plaintiff’s physical parts at the price of the trees, etc., the instant accident appears to have considerable impact on the Plaintiff’s trend, etc. (i.e., the Defendant also recognized the Plaintiff as an occupational accident, and approved the medical treatment).

③ immediately after the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff was sent back to the F Hospital located in Ansan-si. The Plaintiff complained of the F Hospital’s arrival on the day of her arrival at the F Hospital. The Plaintiff began to appeal for the pain pain from the day immediately after the instant accident occurred, and thereafter, complained of the following symptoms from October 2015 to October 201. However, all of the following symptoms are symptoms:

A person shall be appointed.

④ The doctor in charge of the F Hospital failed to verify the climatic damage through general radiation shooting conducted in 2015, 5, and 16, and CT shooting conducted in May 18, 2015. However, the Plaintiff continued to appeal the above symptoms and confirmed the climatic damage through MRI taken on October 16, 2015 (the opinion of June 23, 2016, which was issued by the doctor in charge of the F Hospital, stated that the climatic damage was suspected to have been caused by the climatic damage due to the climatic disorder, the climatic damage, and the climatic damage on October 16, 2015).

⑤ The doctor E of the Indones Busan University, which appraised the Plaintiff’s medical record, presents the opinion that “the c-3-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-4 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 and the sc-7 sc-7 sc-4 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7 sc-7.”

④ Since the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the marble damage of the drilling on October 2015, the Plaintiff appears to have continuously received physical therapy, etc. from the time of applying for the examination of medical records around June 2017, even around the time of applying for the examination of medical records.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, it is so revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the revocation of the part concerning "the damage to the rhetoral waters" among the disposition

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judge Hun-Ba