1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of the medical treatment plan issued to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2018 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff worked in the Plaintiff Company B, and was approved by the Defendant on March 13, 2017, when he/she was engaged in freezing and loading and unloading at freezing vehicles. The Plaintiff was approved to receive medical care from the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff caused “abreging and brain-resistant transfusion” (hereinafter “abreging disease”).

B. On January 18, 2018, while the Plaintiff was receiving medical care for an injury or disease, the Plaintiff submitted a medical treatment plan to the Defendant on January 25, 2018, stating that “the instant injury or disease constitutes a new cerebrovascular that is irrelevant to the previous medical branch” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant measure”). However, on March 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a medical treatment plan to the effect that “the instant injury or disease constitutes a new cerebrscular that is irrelevant to the previous medical branch.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by examining the legitimacy of the instant disposition, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, and 10, and comprehensively considering the results of the request for appraisal of medical records and the overall purport of the pleadings with respect to C Hospital funerals of this Court, the instant injury and disease occurred due to the recurrence or aggravation of the injury and disease with the previous approval rather than a new disease unrelated to the previous approval branch, and thus, the need for medical treatment is recognized. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.

① A person, who had experienced a stroke, is known to have a high possibility of recurrence of the stroke, compared to those who did not, and the Plaintiff did not have been in the first half and a half years of the medical care for the stroke, and the instant injury was caused by the instant injury.

② The bloodline of the injury and disease with the previous approval is “Woo-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-su,” and the bloodline of the injury and disease in this case is “The Yang-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-