1. On April 25, 2013, 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 9, 1997, the Plaintiff entered the Hysung CC Co., Ltd. located in Hysan-si, and was in charge of the operation of electric wires manufacturing machine (a simple electric wire manufacturing), and set off on September 30, 2002, and continued to take charge of the same duties on May 1, 2003.

B. On January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) terminated night work; (b) lost the spirit of around 08:30, which was going to board a bus after attending a trial ceremony; (c) was diagnosed by “other head-scoping to the beer of the beer of the beer of the beer of the beer of the beer of the beer of the head (hereinafter “the instant wound”); and (d) the instant injury was caused by an excessive work that continued to be “the Defendant on March 25, 2013 due to the increase of blood pressure caused by the change in the vehicle temperature.”

(c) On April 25, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the content of duties, period of service, medical records, video data, opinion of advisory doctors, etc. were examined and confirmed as a result of the examination of the contents of duties, records of medical treatment, video data, opinion of advisory doctors, etc., but it is judged that the contents of duties prior to the date of the occurrence of a disaster are insufficient enough to cause the injury and stress, and that there is a proximate causal relation between duties and the injury and the injury and injury, as it is judged that the content of duties prior

“The medical care applied for by the Plaintiff based on the result of the judgment of the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases in the Gwangju District.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Defendant, but was dismissed on September 4, 2013. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on October 24, 2013, but was dismissed on October 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the injury and disease of this case occurred.