1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of an additional injury or disease against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2011 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 22, 2009, the Plaintiff was born and was employed by the window (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On May 22, 2009, the Plaintiff was faced with head at the entrance of the supporting workplace (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for “Savinal chlorates and chlorates” on the ground of the instant accident, and the Defendant issued the approval on July 30, 2009.

C. On October 12, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care benefits on the ground that the instant accident occurred, on October 12, 2009, for the following reasons: (a) on October 26, 2009, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition on the ground that “An additional medical care benefits was rendered for the escape certificate of (foreign) 3-4 (HHE) and 6-7 (HHE).” (b) on October 26, 2009, the Defendant did not appear to have any observation of a sloping conical confluence, but there was no opinion of the escape of a confluent signboard that led to a sudden damage to the surrounding organization, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation.”

On October 12, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care benefits on the ground of the instant accident, and the Defendant rendered non-approval on October 30, 2009 on the ground that “The Defendant did not have any grounds for the chest, and there is no record to suspect the chest, in the medical records immediately after the date of the accident, there is no proximate causal relation.”

E. On October 22, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care benefits on the ground of the instant accident, and on November 4, 2009, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on the ground that “The causal relation is not recognized because there is no injury that could cause direct damage to assistant principals, in view of the circumstance of the initial disaster and the recognition of the injury that the Dag certificate was caused by the damage to assistant principals and the sensitive response to the class 7 or less, and thus, the causal relation is not recognized.”

F. On February 28, 2010, the Plaintiff resigned from the window on November 24, 2011.