1. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2007, the Plaintiff entered a food manufacturing company B (hereinafter “instant company”) which is a food manufacturing company (hereinafter “the instant company”) with an office position and applied for medical management, etc. on or around December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) completed a meeting ceremony prepared by the instant company at around December 20, 2012; (b) sent symptoms that the vehicle moving direction to the left side while the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant, while he was staying home, after having finished a show symptoms that the vehicle moving direction to the instant company’s own vehicle, and sent the vehicle moving direction to the left side; and (c) returned from home, the Plaintiff was used in the vicinity of the voice Eup Eup of the Ma-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, North Korea (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (d) was discovered by the police and reported to the police; and (d) received an application for medical care benefits from the instant medical care benefits to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant 19th Masung Hospital 2”).

B. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with the Daejeon Occupational Disease Determination Committee, that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the instant work because the instant injury was judged to be naturally aggravated by the nature of the existing disease, as it did not confirm any objective burden factors, such as sudden change in the work environment or the accumulation of overwork and stress, to the extent that the Plaintiff may cause the instant injury prior to the occurrence of the disease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked in excess of the average of 5-7 hours per day, average of 20-30 hours per month during the three months prior to the occurrence of the instant injury. Before the occurrence of the instant injury, the Plaintiff would have worked in excess of the long-term hours due to his year-end adjustment work and the resignation of his employees.