1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2013 is revoked.

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

Details of the disposition

A. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was suffering from an accident resulting from an electric cable pipe’s waste while entering a stock company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and serving as an electrical engineer on June 11, 2012, when he was carrying electric wires pipe onto a shoulder on June 11, 2012.

B. From June 12, 2012 following the day following the accident, the Plaintiff received medical care under the diagnosis of “chropine, etc. of the spatulation, etc. of the spatulation.” On May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained medical care approval from the Defendant with respect to “spatum spatum on the left side spatum, the left side spatum spatitis outside the upper part.”

C. From June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff was receiving treatment for the radioactive pertaining to the radioactive pertaining to the radioactive pertaining that did not go through through the diagnosis from D’s source on September 7, 2012, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant after receiving the diagnosis of the Posium escape certificate and the Posium base (hereinafter “the instant Posium”).

Accordingly, on January 16, 2013, the Defendant rejected an application for medical care benefits (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) according to the opinion that “The Defendant shall not approve the application for medical care benefits (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) according to the fact that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the disaster and the disaster, considering the fact that there is an observation of the opinion on the escape of the conical signboard between the third and fourth trends of the MRI, but there is a change in the sloping nature of the conical signboard, and that

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 9, and Eul 6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) 32 years prior to the surgery on the 4-5 period prior to the surgery, and thereafter, the Plaintiff received treatment on the surgery’s nephism and minor lephism caused by the neutism, but there was no difficulty in daily life, and the Plaintiff continued to work on the construction site for about 40 years. 2) On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to the instant accident and five days thereafter.

6. A person who has served for up to 16. They were unable to work any more on account of documentary evidence thereafter;

The plaintiff is due to the above accident.