1. On November 28, 2018, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 15, 1997, the Plaintiff (B) joined C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and worked as a waferer processing process strawer at 3 Ra of semiconductor entertainment business place (hereinafter “instant business place”).

On August 15, 2005, the retirement was made.

B. On the other hand, around May 2004, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as 'brupted meconitis' when there were symptoms, such as a shoulder pain, an abnormal sense, etc., and the Plaintiff was diagnosed as 'brupt meconium' on November 2008 when there were additional symptoms, such as deterioration of the left-hand vision, and the diagnosis was conducted around 2008. As a new diagnosis system was established during treatment and tracking observation, the name of the diagnosis was changed to 'brupt meconitis (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. On September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but on November 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the instant injury and the duty based on the deliberation result of the Committee for Determination of the Minor Disease as follows.

As a result of a review of all the data presented, such as the developments of outbreak, working environment, details of duties, relevant medical data, results of deliberation on occupational diseases, and the statement of opinions by disaster workers and agents, the causal link between the business branches of this case is not recognized in full view of the following factors: (a) the occurrence of the disease of this case is not yet clearly revealed except for rare diseases; (b) it is difficult to discuss the causal relationship between the business branches of this case since the content of the investigation related to the exposed harmful substances in the course of performing duties (on-site information) is not clear; and (c) even after examining the results of the epidemiological investigation, it is not deemed that there is no relevance to the business branch of this case and the fact

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed a request for reexamination.