1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on October 25, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 4, 1981, the Plaintiff (B) joined the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and worked in the Culsan Factory (hereinafter “instant plant”) by December 31, 2012, and carried out the tasks of production (on-site, production, and assembly) of gold and metal repair work.

B. As a result of the health examination of the Plaintiff on October 19, 2010, the Plaintiff’s left-hand side was found.

The Plaintiff did not conduct any additional examination and received medical treatment by visiting the hospital, where symptoms, such as bluriosis and bluriosis, etc., appeared around March 2015.

In a prosecutor conducted on April 16, 2015 against the Plaintiff, the primary lung cancer accompanied by boness before the left-hand side of the Plaintiff was confirmed, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the organ of the upperly missing person or the malicious life of the dead (hereinafter “the instant disease”).

C. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant disease with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on October 25, 2017 on the ground that proximate causal relation between the instant disease and the business was not recognized.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for examination against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 20, 2018, and again filed a petition for reexamination on July 17, 2018, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the petition on November 26, 2018.

E. On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the work that causes a lot of metal dusts, such as folding, perfume, etc.

As a result of the plaintiff's work, the plaintiff continued to be exposed to a variety of harmful chemicals, including mercury, calcium, chromosome, and mercury.