1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the medical care benefit non-approval regarding the escape certificate of conical signboards No. 1-2.

Details of the disposition

From July 10, 2010 to May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a facility engineer in the C Research Institute Disaster Prevention Office under the C Research Institute’s control over co-development, and from January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff served as a facility engineer in the C Research Institute Disaster Prevention Office.

On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at D Hospital Hospital Hospital (1-2) as “the explosive escape certificate of the post-peach 1-2, ② the explosive escape certificate of the post-peach 4-5, ③ the explosive signboard escape certificate of the post-peach 5, ④ the explosive disc stebrate (hereinafter referred to as the above injury disease), and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on May 7, 2015, respectively. On August 7, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that “B, ③ the explosive new landscape of the upper branch No. 4-5, but the duties performed by the Plaintiff were not determined to have high the accumulated physical burden of the convosive body, ② the proximate causal causal causal relation between the affairs of the post-pact and the post-pactary landscape, and the instant disposition for medical care is not recognized.”

(1) On November 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on November 22, 2015, but was dismissed on December 11, 2015. 【Ground for Recognition” did not have any dispute, the Plaintiff’s claim that the instant disposition was legitimate as to the injury or disease, and the purport of the entire pleadings. However, the Defendant did not make any judgment on the instant disposition, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful in the process.

2. There is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s duties and ②, and ③ injury and disease.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's judgment that there was no injury or disease was erroneous. However, the defendant's judgment was ②, ③ although the injury or disease was recognized, ② there was no proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's business and ③ the injury or disease was disposed.