1. On September 16, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for oriental medical care is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 25, 2013, while the Plaintiff participated in the ceremony organized by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant ceremony”) while working as a customer support team charge and a frequency of the electric power plant branch B (hereinafter “instant business site”) at the electric power plant headquarters B, the Plaintiff returned home, and discovered the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On April 26, 2013, the Plaintiff sent back to a hospital by the 119 rescue team, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on July 26, 2013, for the medical care benefits, on the basis of the diagnosis of the injury and injury to the patient, with the diagnosis of the injury and injury to the patient, who is sent back to the hospital and without the head open address, the blood transfusion of the light-to-face in which there is no head open address, the emulative cerebrovassis, and the emulative cerebrssis with no head open address.

C. On September 16, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant accident was not an accident that occurred during the performance of duties under a labor contract within the workplace, but an accident that occurred during the use of the company house, which is the place of accident, due to the defect of facilities, etc. or the neglect of management, and thus, the instant injury and disease did not constitute an occupational accident.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on December 20, 2013, and subsequently, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee dismissed on May 2, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1 through 3, 21, 22, and Category B 1, 2, and 7

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant meeting was held with the approval of the head of the customer support team, who is the superior of the charge, for the systematic collection of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the future, and the rest of the meeting excluding those who are unable to attend on duty and on the personal circumstances among the fee-frequency staff.