1. On December 20, 2016, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff joined B, and was engaged in fluoring and melting the racker’s string of the racker (referring to steel parts necessary to load the block of a large steel structure in a square type, and the type of 6-151km up to 6-151km based on its size and weight). On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff fluoring the racker and then fluoring the racker during the process of racking the racker.

On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the escape certificate of the 3-4th century (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) by visiting the C-4 guard, and received hydronuclear removal from the D Hospital on April 19, 2016.

B. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a medical care benefit claim against the Defendant on the ground that the instant injury and disease occurred due to the heavy sturging, folding, and backing of the Defendant’s house, which was in charge of the instant injury and disease in B. On December 20, 2016, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “Influoring opinion, not the instant injury and disease may not be acknowledged as a result of a sudden change in the running nature of the memorial signboard, which is not the instant injury and disease,” on December 20, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the petition on May 15, 2017.

On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, and the said Committee dismissed the request for reexamination.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 10, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The fact that the injury or disease of this case occurred to the plaintiff's assertion is confirmed in accordance with the medical records, etc., and the injury or disease of this case occurred in the course of repeatedly following the plaintiff's work. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

B. Article 5 Subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).