1. On January 26, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for oriental medical care is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the hospital B and was diagnosed by the shoulder ruptures, heat ruptures, and heat (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to the examination by both shoulder ruptures at C Hospital on each side, and was subject to the examination by the lower court on June 27, 2016, the lower court, on July 27, 2016, the lower court’s re-suptures to the right ruptures, the lower court’s re-suptures to the right ruptures around the left ruptures, and the lower court’s re-suptures on August 24, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for medical care benefits by asserting that the instant injury and disease was caused by an occupational accident, and the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 26, 2017 on the ground that the causal relation with the business was not recognized.

C. The Plaintiff filed a re-examination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on the instant disposition. On May 12, 2017, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the instant disposition on the ground that “the instant injury and disease on the left-hand side” was not caused, and “the instant injury and disease on the right-hand side” in the field of the instant injury and disease was not caused, and “the instant injury and disease on the right-hand side (hereinafter “the right-hand side of the instant case”), but there was a fact that the injury and disease were caused, and that there was no connection with the duties.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 1-2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff joined B on November 14, 2001 and 14 years and 7 months after being employed, and repeated operations conducted to make the error in the form of the part in the process of the plaintiff's work smooth, at least 20 to 30 times a day in order to make the error in the part in the part in the process of making it smooth. Since the disease in this case occurred in the course of performing these duties, the disease in this case constitutes an occupational accident.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

B. Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.