1. On February 12, 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 October 29, 2002, the Plaintiff is a person who was employed in the subordinate factory B (hereinafter “instant workplace”).

B. On November 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the escape certificate No. 5-6 and No. 6-7 (hereinafter “each of the instant injury and disease”) and received scambling scamscam.

C. On January 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant applied for medical care benefits for each of the instant injury and disease. However, on February 12, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care on the ground that “Although each of the instant injury and disease is confirmed as a result of the deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Occupational Disease, a large number of members for deliberation are observing some of the culpistss or the culpations among their duties, but the degree of cumulative physical burden is not high because it is difficult to view that the intensity and frequency is excessive, and thus the causal link between the pertinent injury and each of the instant injury and disease is not recognized.” Therefore, each of the instant injury and disease is not recognized as an occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On March 13, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on March 13, 2018, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the grounds that “It is difficult to recognize the relationship between work and work in the field of the application, on the grounds that the applicant’s injury and disease is not observed in addition to expansion 6-7, and escape 5-6 is confirmed in the trend of 5-6, but the applicant’s duty is not observed.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant plant carried out assembly and completion of the instant plant, etc., and the head of the instant plant depends on the head of the plant in the future for assembly work.