1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of the medical care benefit granted to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 20, 1996, the Plaintiff was employed and engaged in the painting construction industry in Seongdong-si, Sungdong Construction Industry, Sung-gu, Sung-si, and was in charge of painting duties. On October 23, 1996, the Plaintiff fell in the above place of business and was faced with knee kne knee on the sne beam (hereinafter “the instant disaster”). The Plaintiff suffered injury to the “sle knee knee” (hereinafter “the previous injury”).

B. The Plaintiff provided medical care to the previous injury and disease of this case until April 15, 1997, and received medical care benefits from the Defendant.

C. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff diagnosed the right knee (hereinafter “Egneosan Hospital”) at the Masan Hospital (hereinafter “Masan Hospital”) of the medical corporation, the Plaintiff received the diagnosis of the kneeeeee in the application of the instant case as “magne infection” (hereinafter “Masan Hospital”). On April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff received the treatment of the knee crye in the human mission with respect to the Defendant, and on April 3, 2013, filed an application for re-medical care benefits on the premise that the instant application for medical care benefits and the knee crye of human mission were caused by the instant disaster.

On April 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s additional medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there was no proximate causal link between the injury and disease in the instant application and the injury and disease in the human mission of the instant case, based on the medical opinion that “The Defendant had the past history of treating the Plaintiff as slovas, but shows severe slovasal slive slive slive slive slive slive slive sliveslive sliveslives from the radiation before the surgery,” on the ground

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the injury or disease caused by the instant accident or the previous injury or disease caused by the Defendant’s assertion is above the natural progress.