1. On December 18, 2012, 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 August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was found to have been working at a toilet in the place of business around 06:00 and sent back to an ambulances hospital, and was diagnosed by self-exploital cerebral cerebral cerebral typhy (hereinafter “instant disease”) in the C Agricultural Cooperative Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that, on December 18, 2012, the period of service is shorter and occupational stress is not verified, the Defendant did not approve medical care according to the result of deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for an examination and reexamination, but was dismissed on April 26, 2013 and July 25, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1-5 (including virtual number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The amount of work performed for one week prior to the occurrence of the instant injury to the Plaintiff’s assertion increased by at least 44% compared to the previous one, and the amount of work performed mainly by concentrating the time of occupation, and the Plaintiff has to work in the summer breadth, and is living in the workplace.

If the agricultural products arrive, it is often time to lower the work even before the work hours.

A vehicle’s exhaust of agricultural products has caused a rise in the Plaintiff’s blood pressure, and there is also a possibility that the instant wound was caused by the effect of an outbreak during the course of the disaster on the day of the accident. The exhaust of agricultural products is a physiological act that inevitably follows the performance of its duties and is recognized as a work personality.

Although there was a high blood pressure in the Plaintiff, normal blood pressure was maintained since 2011, there was no urology, and there was no urology, and there was an adequate management of health such as cutting tobacco and reducing alcohol.

In full view of these points, the injury and disease of this case is assessed.