The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on December 4, 2017 is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff (B) entered Ansan-si Member C (hereinafter “instant workplace”) and carried out delivery services, negligence, and bank support services. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff (B) returned to and was used in the instant workplace and was sent to the D Hospital. On the same day, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed as “the blood transfusion from the left side on the same day” (hereinafter “instant disease”).

B. On August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury to the Defendant. However, on December 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the review that “It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work with the instant branch and the Plaintiff’s work performance on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the Plaintiff’s work performance, on the grounds of the result of the deliberation that “it is confirmed that the duty before the outbreak was carried out without confirming a sudden change in the situation or rapid work environment, or occupational stress, and it is confirmed that the work hours before the outbreak was performed for a long time. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had been on the same day after the outbreak of ten-day sick leave before the outbreak, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the work of the Plaintiff.”

C. On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on March 2, 2018, but the petition for reexamination was dismissed on June 8, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as close as an average of 60 hours a week prior to the occurrence of the instant injury and disease.

physical. in the damp working environment.