1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of the medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on January 14, 2016 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff, a subcontractor of the promotion company, was employed by the Plaintiff as a daily employed worker in the Company B, a subcontractor of the promotion company, and performed the work of cleaning hot-resistant materials at the construction site of “N3 1250MPPPPPPPPPPPY” in Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu.

B. On November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant accident” (hereinafter “instant accident”), “the two sides of the breath, the breath, the breath, the breath, the fluoral base, the fluoral base, the fluoral base, the fluoral base, and the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor,” and “the fluoral fluoral fluor, the fluoral fluoral fluor, the fluorite number

C. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the above injury and disease. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff only medical care for “dual, fluoral, fluoral, and luoral salt,” and issued a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on the ground that there was no special opinion on brain-disease’s disease, food room, CT, and MRI’s disease.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case" and the non-approved injury and disease of this case "the injury and disease of this case" hereinafter). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 2 through 6, 8, 11 through 13, 16 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was diagnosed as the injury of this case after he was faced with the inside and the head of the Gu at the time of the accident of this case. Since the injury of this case occurred due to the accident of this case, the disposition of this case which allowed the non-approval of the medical care was unlawful.

B. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, and Eul evidence No. 4.

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Busan National University Hospital’s opinion attached thereto.