1. On April 11, 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 June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff (B.C) joined the headquarters located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and worked at the headquarters located in Jongno-gu Seoul, and worked at the headquarters located in the headquarters located in Jongno-gu, Seoul, and from July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff (B.B.) worked at the headquarters located in the headquarters located in the headquarters located in Jongno-gu, Seoul.

B. On October 31, 2017, on the day when the Plaintiff did not come to work without any contact, the Plaintiff’s work bonus found to be a lodging place in the company located in the field of strike where the Plaintiff resides and reported to the 119th National Assembly on October 31, 2017.

At around 11:51 on the same day, the plaintiff was transferred to the emergency room of the E Hospital located in the Pakistan-si, and again, was transferred to the F Hospital located in the Goyang-si.

C. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “brain due to the force of preventing cerebral cerebral Maculculty” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and filed an application for medical care benefits to the Defendant.

On April 11, 2018, the Defendant is recognized to have been under an in-depth burden because it was anticipated that the second delivery date of the design drawing was determined prior to the occurrence of the Plaintiff, and that the number of agent working for the said two weeks would have increased, and thus, the Defendant would have been under an in-depth burden. However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff only performed the work of assisting the Plaintiff in preparing the work log, etc. after his entry and performed the work of modifying the design drawing from the end of July, and there is only the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the work performed by the employee who actually left employment was over and transferred to the Plaintiff, and there is no objective basis as to whether the work performed by the employee who actually left employment was over, and ② calculation of the number of work hours per week prior to the occurrence of the occurrence based on the objective commuting record is 55 hours and 46 minutes if the work hours per week prior to the occurrence were to be increased by more than 30% compared to the average work hours of 43 hours and 12 weeks prior to the occurrence.