1. On December 28, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care for the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, while working in the mining center, was diagnosed on December 13, 2014, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant.

B. However, on December 28, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to grant medical care non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff is recognized as having received medical treatment of the instant injury and disease during the period of service, but there was no record that the Plaintiff had been treated due to the instant injury and disease during the period of service, and a reasonable period has expired, and there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work branch and the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s work.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered from the injury of this case since he was exposed to a stimul and shock with strong damage caused by the business, etc. using the vibration tools for a long period of time while working in the mining center for 33 years. However, the defendant's disposition of this case made on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by an employee’s occupational accident during his/her work. Thus, there must be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting it. The causal relationship must not be clearly proven in medical and natural science, even if it is not necessarily necessary to establish it, a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease can be inferred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002) considering all circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002).