1. On June 29, 2018, the Defendant’s failure to grant medical treatment to the Plaintiff on June 29, 2018 on the part of the slives of the slives.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2008, while working for a contact with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the diagnosis of “the first instance court’s failure to provide medical care for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff’s medical treatment approval was made only for the “satisfy satfy satfy, the right satfy satfy sat, the left satfy satfy satum satfy in the left satfy; (b) the left satfy sat satfy sat sats at the left satfy; (c) the left satfy sat sat sats at the left satfy; (d) the Defendant applied for medical care for the remainder of the injury.”

B. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Defendant, but was dismissed, and the Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said request was also dismissed.

C. Since then, on November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with knee and knee and shot, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant upon the diagnosis of “the damage of anti-months on the side of each side of the snee and snee, the right-side sleke, and the right-side sleke (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

On June 29, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to view that there is a direct proximate causal relation with the instant injury and disease, such as confirmation of the fact that the injury and disease was diagnosed, as a result of the deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Non-Occupational Disease, the injury and disease in the instant case was observed according to the MRI, but a considerable period has elapsed after the suspension of work, and even in the medical record, the injury and disease in the instant case were raised more than three years after retirement.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful