1. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s non-approval of medical care for official duties.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 1, 2002, while the Plaintiff was in charge of gambling, maintenance, and painting in the Special Weapons Maintenance Group of Permitted comprehensive Maintenance and Maintenance on March 16, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the organ of an unidentified organ or abandoned malicious life (defluence), and the plane plate closure part (hereinafter “the injury and disease in this case”)” on March 16, 201, and on September 10, 201, the Plaintiff continuously exposed to the Defendant’s known chrop, etc. in the course of performing the duties of maintaining equipment, lodging, washing, washing, and painting, while performing the circuit card maintenance and repair at any time, continuously exposed to a long-term hazardous substance in the work environment where protective equipment, such as the rain and groke, was not installed, and the injury and disease in this case was accumulated due to frequent physical and mental symptoms, and applied for the approval of the Medical Treatment Act aggravated due to aggravation in the line of official duty.

B. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) cannot be presumed to have caused a disease due to official duties because the cause of the instant injury is not clearly revealed; (b) there is no medical evidence that the disease occurred in the Plaintiff’s working condition or environment; and (c) it is difficult to deem that there was an excessive work beyond the ordinary scope of the Plaintiff’s work details. Therefore, the instant injury is deemed to have resulted from combined action of the Plaintiff’s physical talent and external action rather than from occupational stress. Accordingly, the instant injury was subject to the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s approval of medical treatment due to the lack of substantial causal relationship with official duties on the ground that the instant injury was not approved for the Plaintiff’s official duties.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without going through a prior trial procedure regarding the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1's evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the non-smoking, and there was no health problem at the time of employment.

The Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall also apply.