1. On October 18, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition of rejection of an additional injury or disease against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After having worked for a long time in the mining center, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant by asserting that he/she was diagnosed with the injury and disease, such as “synchitis on the side, the right-hand side,” etc., and on February 21, 2019, among the injury and disease who applied for medical care benefits from the Defendant, the medical care was approved for “synchitis on the side, the right-hand side, and the right-hand side,” among those who applied for medical care benefits from the Defendant.

B. On July 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the approval of additional injury and disease with the Defendant on October 2, 2019, asserting that “the instant additional injury and disease” was additionally diagnosed by “the nuclear power plant in the sponse of the sphere in the right sphere, the sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere, the sphere sphere sphere sphere s

C. On October 18, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of additional injury and disease approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Defendant’s advisory opinion considered the circumstance of the accident, the name of the injury and the history of work, etc., but presented a medical opinion that there is no proximate causal relation with the occupational accident.”

The plaintiff filed a request for examination against the defendant, but the defendant dismissed the request for examination on February 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff repeated knenee in the course of loading, unloading, work of prop construction, etc. in a mining center, and received considerable attention to knee in the knee room.

Plaintiff

The doctor also presented the opinion that the additional disease in this case is more severe than that of the need for surgery, and as long as the medical care for the injury and disease was approved due to the plaintiff's work, the additional disease in this case occurred on the knee side where such burden has been imposed.