1. On February 20, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for the medical care granted to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was employed in the KCAB and performed the pipe duct construction work. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was an employee who was employed in the KCAB and was engaged in the business of installing the flow meters of industrial water in the 2nd underground floor mechanical room of the Samsung T&M semiconductor found in the industrial wastewater containing two losses and knee and below all knee in the product name while performing the work of installing the flow meters of industrial water in the 2nd underground floor of the complex wastewater treatment plant of Samsung & the semiconductor semiconductor plant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”. (b)

On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed medical care benefits from the Defendant on January 30, 2013, for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Seoul Masung (hereinafter “instant injury”); (b) was exposed to the instant accident and caused the instant injury; and (c) the Plaintiff claimed medical care benefits from the Defendant on January 30, 2013.

C. As to this, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval for medical care on February 20, 2013, on the ground that “The record of the acute disease, etc. at the time of the accident is not discovered, there is no special opinion even in the euro examination, and the Maurme cannot be an objective evidence of the Maurme damage, and there is no obvious objective opinion that can lead the Plaintiff to be confirmed by the Mauroosis.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). / [The grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion was exposed to the accident in the instant case, and the injury in the instant case occurred.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the wastewater was not included in the wastewater at the time of the instant accident, and even if included, the wastewater was excessive.

In addition, immediately after the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not observe the acute skin disease, and the Plaintiff’s symptoms are insufficient to diagnose the Plaintiff’s symptoms as Daneneneosis because there is no error in the flag test. Rather, the Plaintiff received ebrate ebrate disease in the past.