1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on June 18, 2019 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered from an accident that she was faced with a vehicle entering the right joint road in Guro-ro in the direction of the household service distance (hereinafter “instant accident”) with a worker on daily work at the construction site, who driven an Otoba in the direction of the south-ro in the direction of the household service distance on the south-ro in the south-ro (hereinafter “instant accident”) and was faced with an accident that she was faced with a vehicle entering the right joint road in the south-ro (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered from an injury to the vehicle with no two open address, 3 to 6 times from the external trauma, 3 to the right edge, 6 times from the upper half of the two external traumas, and a external injury without any open address.”

B. The Plaintiff, while working at the C construction site of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “instant construction site”), was involved in the instant accident.

On June 18, 2019, the Defendant filed an application for the payment of medical care benefits on the ground that “the instant accident cannot be recognized as a disaster that occurred while the Plaintiff worked at the construction site of this case” on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B's on-site manager and D's manager claim that they did not request the plaintiff on November 30, 2018 to work at the site.

In the construction site of this case, the form of supply of human resources in D is proceeding at the request of B. B. B. A request for release using Kakao Stockholm for the number of workers necessary for the work following the following day, and in the case of a person who actually arrives at work following the following day, whether he/she is present at work in the work confirmation document. In particular, unlike other workers, B, unlike the other workers, had the Plaintiff’s name stated that he/she had been working at the Kakao

F. On November 29, 2018, the day before the accident occurred, the Plaintiff’s name was not entirely indicated in the Kakao Stockholm content between B and D.