1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for the medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on September 17, 2014, “the part part of the back-to-door part of the back-to-door branch.”

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff (BB and male) entered a DNA company (hereinafter “NE”) company (hereinafter “NE”) and has performed the control work.

B. On March 22, 2014, at around 10:30, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: (a) there was a serious pain on the shoulder while she was melted to put up 5 km parts in the non-party company’s place of business (hereinafter “the instant disaster”); (b) on March 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: “In the course of the inspection conducted by visiting the C Hospital, the pelke of the pelke of the pelke on the left side, the pelke of the pelke, the right-hand collision, the right-hand collision, the right-hand part of the opening part of the back part of the shoulder of the shoulder (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the first medical care benefit for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant. However, on September 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s work.

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on January 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted 1) The plaintiff asserts that since the disease of this case is caused by the accident of this case or the existing symptoms of this case, which occurred repeatedly in the course of the plaintiff's work, and the disease of this case gets worse, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the work of this case and the work of this case, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the accident as an occupational accident should be revoked as unlawful. 2) On the contrary, the defendant does not make the plaintiff's work unreasonable, but it does not constitute a business of this case