1. On July 30, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of additional injury and disease approval against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 20, 2018, alleging that “the instant accident was diagnosed on the Gyeong-in, the left-hand fluoral salt fluor, the left-hand fluoral salt fluor, and the end-hand fluored salt fluor,” as a traffic accident that occurred on October 23, 2017 while returning to a lodging room during the business trip (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On June 28, 2018, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s medical care with respect to the Plaintiff’s “hump salted base, the left-hand corner salted base,” and issued a disposition not to grant medical care with respect to “hump salted base.”

C. On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the approval of additional injury and disease with the Defendant, alleging that “the additional injury and disease were additionally diagnosed” due to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant additional injury and disease”).

The Defendant, on July 30, 2018, cannot be determined as having caused the instant accident, and even considering the Plaintiff’s subjective experience, it cannot be determined as a disaster to the extent that the instant accident was likely to cause the instant additional disease, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the instant accident was an accident to the extent that it would cause the instant additional disease. As such, the recognition of additional disease is inappropriate. ② The instant accident was determined as a traffic accident to the extent that the instant additional disease was rapidly launched and the instant additional disease was play after the rapid departure of the vehicle, and thus, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the instant additional disease. ③ The instant accident cannot be determined as having caused the instant additional disease, and even considering the Plaintiff’s subjective experience, it cannot be determined as a disaster to the extent that the instant additional disease was not sufficient to cause the instant additional disease. ④ The instant accident was determined as an additional disease approval for non-approval for the additional disease.