1. Revocation the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of the medical care benefits granted to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2015.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) that was dissatisfyed on the snowway while entering the DNAex and performing the duties of the control.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant for the injury of “the extreme stroke, extreme stroke, and the left-hand strokeed stroke,” on the ground that it overlaps with the Defendant’s duty to bear a shoulder burden while serving for a multi-year period of time with the above accident and the government room.”

C. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the “satisfyed salt on the left side” is recognized as an injury or disease caused by an occupational accident, but the “satisfy on the left side, extreme, and satisfy on the face” (hereinafter “the instant injury or disease”) was not recognized as an occupational disease.

The plaintiff filed a request for review against this, but it was dismissed, but the review was also dismissed on November 18, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an occupational accident, and it is evident that the accident of this case was examined “the scopic scopher, extreme scopical scopher, and the left-hand scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic

B. (1) The instant accident was caused by snow that was accumulated in the course of finding a pllet in the company’s workplace, and immediately after the accident, “B” as it was impossible to bring the arms out.