1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant additional injury and disease to the Plaintiff on February 21, 2018 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident falling at a height of 2 meters during work at a workplace (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. After the instant accident, the Plaintiff received medical care approval from the Defendant regarding the “scamulverization of scams on the front side” and the “scamscams (No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) of the front side of the instant disaster” (hereinafter “former approved injury and disease”).

C. On January 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the recognition of “malopsis damage on the left side (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On February 21, 2018, the Defendant applied for the recognition of the instant injury as an additional injury. The instant injury is highly unlikely to occur beyond the credit due to diverse causes, and the instant injury is likely to occur due to the occurrence of the instant injury accompanied by the weather approval branch. Accordingly, it is difficult to find proximate causal relation with the instant accident. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s application was rejected (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff filed a petition for review against this, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered from the injury or disease of this case as well as the injury or disease of this case due to the disaster of this case, but the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is presumed that the Plaintiff’s instant injury and disease occurred due to the instant disaster, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the records of evidence Nos. 2 and 8; (b) the results of the commission of the examination of medical records to the head of this court B hospital; and (c) the results of the commission

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

The Plaintiff is prior to the instant accident.