1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on October 17, 2014 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 198, the Plaintiff joined the third party branch, Inc., Ltd., the land loading and unloading business within a harbor, and worked as a non-instructor and Track drivers. On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the following grounds: “On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was put into transport business within the weight cargo using his/her own stocks/P (24M) and continued the operation of the large weight cargo, the length of which is longer to the T/P, with a large weight cargo, to secure the transport route and to confirm obstacles; on the other hand, the Plaintiff continued the operation of the upper party frequently and repeatedly in order to secure the transport route and confirm obstacles; from the end of May 2014, the Plaintiff was suffering from unstable symptoms to the right side of the port; and the Plaintiff was diagnosed at C Hospital No. 5-6 (hereinafter “instant disease”).

B. On October 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the instant injury and disease according to the result of the Busan Occupational Disease Determination Committee’s determination.

C. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition. However, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination on February 17, 2015, and the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination on or around May 14, 2015, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on June 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion continued to perform the work of continuously imposing heavy burden on a long period while serving as a non-resident and a Track driver, thereby causing the instant injury and injury.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is within the harbor on May 1, 1988.