1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered a corporation B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) and worked as an intermediate factory, and went back to the hospital after being called “the hospital at his own home around March 28, 2017.” After receiving the diagnosis of “bral dystrophism and cerebral dystrophism” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury and disease”), the Plaintiff filed a claim for medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 26, 2017.

B. On August 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2017, based on the results of deliberation by the Gwangju Occupational Disease Determination Committee, that “the Plaintiff is judged to have worse the area of brain beer than to be caused by stress arising from the short-term occupational path and chronic difficulty or from a sudden and difficult situation or from changes in the business environment at the time of the occurrence of the instant injury” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on November 9, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion increases management duties with respect to corporate restructuring and factory integration, such as reduction of the number of workers. However, during the first to second week immediately before the occurrence of the instant injury, the Plaintiff continued to work more than 62 hours except for one day off duty, which can be seen as having a considerable stress on the Plaintiff’s existing disease of brain ties. The Plaintiff’s diagnosis of brain ties and received periodic observation and treatment until the outbreak date of the instant injury, and the Plaintiff took care of health care. The debate over the date of the occurrence of the instant injury is significant.