1. The Defendant’s disposition of rejection of part of the injury and disease against the Plaintiff on April 20, 2012 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 25, 201, the Plaintiff was employed in C in the Chungcheongbuk-gun B, and served as an adjoining person.

B. On November 17, 201, the Plaintiff was subject to a traffic accident that conflicts with other vehicles from the MaM5 vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) located adjacent to the EM5 vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) operated by the representative D after installing the 19:10 Simsan-si site, and went to the workplace at the place of business, during which the Plaintiff was hospitalized at a medical corporation, the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of the “scopical base, scopical base, scopical base, scopical signboard escape certificate, and scopical signboard escape certificate,” and on February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for the medical care to the Defendant.

C. Accordingly, on April 20, 2012, the Defendant approved the medical care as to the “scopical base, and scopical base” among the above charged soldiers, but rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that there was no medical causal relationship with the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as the “instant injury”) with respect to the escape certificate (No. 3-4, No. 4-5, No. 5, No. 6-6, and No. 6-7), and the escape certificate (No. 3-4, No. 4-5, No. 5, and No. 1, No. 1,000).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on August 1, 2012, and thus, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on November 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred, not in accordance with happiness, but in accordance with the instant accident, since the Plaintiff did not slickly or slickly receive treatment before the instant accident occurred and was engaged in ordinary physical or physical work. Therefore, the instant injury and disease occurred or occurred due to the instant accident.