1. On March 28, 2019, the Defendant’s measure of non-approval of the medical care granted to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2019, is the shock-up group, the left-hand side of the shoulder.

Details of the disposition

A. On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff entered the Ulsan Factory B (hereinafter “instant place of business”), and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, asserting that “In the instant case No. 1 rank, the shock e.g., the shock e., the shock e., the left-hand shoulder e.g., the Defendant’s e., the shock e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e.g., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e.g., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant’s e., the Defendant

B. On March 28, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the number of times of handling heavy goods in the Plaintiff’s work performed and the unstable attitude and shoulder shouldered, and there are some shoulder burdens by using the attitude and vibration tools that transfer the arms to 360 degrees at the time of removal of chips, but the overall portion of the work is not higher in light of the work hours, robbery, etc., and the first and third diseases of this case are low in business relations, and on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the work as a whole, the second and third diseases of this case are not recognized.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the petition for reexamination on September 2, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has repeatedly used shoulder while working in the instant workplace for a long time, and there are many cases where the Plaintiff complained of the same symptoms among the paid-in workers.

The defendant's advisory opinion also evaluates business relations, and whether or not the occupational disease is caused by the plaintiff's health and physical conditions.