1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant additional injury and disease to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 16, 2001, the Plaintiff applied for additional injury and disease to the injury and disease “The 4-5 emergency exit card No. 4-5 emergency exit card No. 5-3 emergency exit card No. 1” (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and disease with the Defendant on “The rapch escape card between spine No. 3-4 and the 3-4 emergency exit card between the ebrate and the ebrate (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

B. Accordingly, on November 27, 2017, the Defendant issued an additional measure of non-approval of the injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Gyeongdo’s opinion of prompt arrival is confirmed, but it is not necessary to perform an operation, and the opinion of the escape from a warning sign is not confirmed. The injury and disease is not recognized, and there is no causal relationship with the existing injury and disease.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request was rendered on February 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Not only is it confirmed that the injury or disease of this case occurred to the plaintiff alleged by the plaintiff, but also the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service determined that the cause of the injury or disease of this case is caused by the existing occupational accident already approved. The injury or disease of this case is unlawful in the disposition of this case conducted on a different premise despite the causal relationship with the accident of this case.

B. The facts of recognition (1) are as follows: (a) the opinion of the Plaintiff’s Head Hospital – the opinion of the Plaintiff’s Head Hospital - The 5th Ethical 4-5, the 5-Tapical 1st century, and the 2004, the 2004, and the radioactive ray and the radioactive ray caused by legacy that occurred on the adjacent part in the state of being implemented after the 2006, and the 2006, applying for additional additional medical care; (b) the application for additional medical care due to the aggravation of the radioactive ray and the radioactive ray caused by the depression that occurred on the adjacent part after the vertebrate operation.