1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s non-approval disposition of additional medical care rendered against the Plaintiff on January 27, 2016.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows. The court's explanation about this case is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the modification of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised part 2) Additional medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not change the first medical care and its nature except that the medical care was provided for a recurrence after the completion of the medical care or for a merger of the pertinent injury or disease after the completion of the medical care. Thus, the requirements for additional medical care do not meet the requirements for additional medical care, and therefore, there is a medical proximate causal relation between the first injury or disease branch which applied for additional medical care in addition to the requirements for additional medical care. It is sufficient to view that there is a medical opinion that the medical care could be expected by the aggravation of the symptoms compared to the disease at the time of the first injury or disease at the time of the completion of the medical care or the payment of disability benefits. In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to recognize additional medical care only where the symptoms of the disease or disease at the time of the first injury or disease, compared to those at the time of the payment of disability benefits, and active medical care is acknowledged in light of the above legal principles as to the Plaintiff’s symptoms and symptoms of the first injury or disease (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du17662, supra).