1. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was employed as a taxi driver of the U.S. corporation. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff had been employed as a taxi driver. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff had been suffering from A.S. with A. P. A. S. L. S. A. L. S. and L. A. S., on July 5, 2010, and on July 5, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by 16:0 when there was low body symptoms of which the horses were divided into two parts, and was transferred to the emergency room of the Central University Hospital at around 17:12, and was diagnosed as brain s.e., brain s., s.e., brain s. (hereinafter “the instant disease”).

B. On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted an occupational accident to the Defendant and filed an application for medical care benefits. However, on January 27, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care on the ground that the instant injury and disease is not recognized due to an occupational accident to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is an occupational accident pursuant to the Seoul Decision of the Seoul Committee for Determination of Occupational Disease.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the above disposition. However, around September 201, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the excess prior to the outbreak, even though brain color occurred on July 1, 2010, and there was no special case or accident, and there was no special circumstance, and the Plaintiff’s age was born in 1950 and the beer of the beer of the beer and the beer of the beer of the beer connection with an individual disease. Accordingly, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relation with the instant injury and disease according to the results of deliberation by the Industrial

Although the Plaintiff appealed against this and filed a request for reexamination, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on December 9, 201 on the grounds that it appears that the instant injury and disease occurred due to the natural aggravation of existing diseases, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the work.

On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the injury and disease in the instant case, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care on March 7, 2013 on the same ground to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition]