1. On October 22, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of medical care against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the following grounds: (a) while working as an activity assistant for persons with disabilities at B Hospital on September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff sleeped her pains (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (b) as a result of the medical examination at the hospital, the Plaintiff was diagnosed that there was her pains and her pains; and (c) as a result of the medical examination at the hospital, the Plaintiff was diagnosed that there was her “t

On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits due to occupational accidents on the basis of the “Week Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum.” On October 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to grant partial approval of medical care exemption (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “Ie Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum Madum

On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for an examination to the Defendant. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the hard drive scam and the business on March 5, 2014.

On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee. However, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the same grounds as on July 22, 2014, and the written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on July 28, 2014.

On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in this Court.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, the absence of dispute, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and even if the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings was caused by the plaintiff's escape from the plaintiff's pre-existing disease Nos. 4-5, the plaintiff would normally perform the duty of a disabled assistant's activity without a hummatic pain prior to the accident.