2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On December 3, 1987, the Plaintiff entered the Daewoo Shipbuilding, Inc., Ltd., and filed an application for medical care benefits on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s work to clean up the apartment of foreigners from 1991 to 191 (foreign affairs department), the work to transport and dispose of gas distribution devices thereafter (facility support) and thereafter, the Plaintiff carried out work to transport and dispose of gas distribution devices (facility support). The Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits on the grounds that “The Department of Education and the Department of Education dealing with heavy things, as it is dealing with the lusium and the lusium, the lusium escape certificate L2/3, the lusical signboard escape certificate L3/4, the lusical signboard escape certificate L5/5, the lusical signboard escape certificate L5/61, the left side and the left side of the lusium, the back of the left side shoulder, the collision of the left side shoulder, etc.”

B. On March 20, 2017, the Defendant approved the medical treatment of the Plaintiff on March 20, 2017: L2/3, the escape certificate of a protruding signboard, L3/4, the escape certificate of a protruding signboard, L4/5, the escape certificate L5/S1, the credit rating of the left-hand side, the left-hand hand tunnel ex post facto group, as a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s medical treatment of the instant injury group, “Is the left-hand part of the shoulder, and the left-hand part of the collision.”

Considering the degree of change of age and disease, and the characteristics of the injury and disease occurred from the arms that are used as a supplementary measure, there is no proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and disease.

For reasons, "the disposition of this case" is "the disposition of this case".

(c) The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but on June 2, 2017, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request was rendered. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1, 2, and 22, and Eul’s 1, 2, and 4, and the entire purport of the pleading, as a whole.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was in a state where the shoulder pipe was considerably weak while carrying out a laundry work for height of heavy objects by hand while cleaning and washing, and the plaintiff's gas distribution machine transport and repair work has recently been performed.