1. On February 27, 2014, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of additional injury and disease approval against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2013, when the Plaintiff was employed and worked in SPS (hereinafter “SP”) on the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident where 50 liters dysium dysium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium.

B. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the first medical care to the Defendant on the basis of the Defendant’s first application for the medical care, and recognized the “damage to the lusium, salt, and flusium on both sides” as an occupational accident, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s injury to the lusium and flusium on both sides.”

on February 17, 2014, after additional diagnosis, filed an application for additional injury and disease to the defendant.

C. On February 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated that the instant injury to the disease was the main cause of a change in the recidivism due to the existing disease; and (b) stated that the Plaintiff’s non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for additional injury to the disease was the instant disposition.

D. The Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee were examined and asked for reexamination, but all of them were dismissed. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, 2, 2, 3, 6, 7 (each of the entries and arguments including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he joined the Non-Party Company had been engaged in moving 300 km or more while working for 7 months or more, but did not have been treated as a string, etc. before the instant accident occurred. The Plaintiff’s assertion was examined as to the ground after going beyond the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff saw that both shoulders were plucked up to the point of “hicking” to the point of day.

In light of these circumstances, it shall be deemed that the existing disease known to the Plaintiff was caused by the instant accident, and the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease is recognized.