1. On September 5, 2016, the Defendant’s first disposition of non-approval of medical care, which was issued to the Plaintiff, is an estimated signboard escape card No. 45.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 18, 200, the Plaintiff joined B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) and was in charge of sampling (the cleaning of the floor and facilities within the process) from September 2013.

B. (1) On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that there was an escape certificate between the 4/5th and the 5/000 Y 1 on the ground that the Defendant had no substantial relation between the Plaintiff’s duties and the 5/000 Y 1, and that the Defendant rejected the first medical care approval on September 5, 2016, on the ground that there was no substantial relation between the Plaintiff’s duties and the 5/000 Y 1.

(hereinafter referred to as 4/5 of the emergency escape certificate shall be the injury and disease of this case, and a disposition rejecting the first approval of medical care against this injury and disease of this case shall be subject to the disposition of this case).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On July 18, 200, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had become a member of B, and engaged in a work that imposes a burden on lusium work, such as red floor work and sampling proton work, and on February 8, 2016, the instant injury was caused by the instant injury and disease by repeatedly imposing a short period of time on collecting hosing away from the ground while engaging in traditional play as a promulsure when exercising a name-saving event.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's business branch of this case and the plaintiff's business, and the disposition of this case, which was taken from the opposite position, is unlawful as it was based on an erroneous factual awareness.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff operated the studio studio facility work from April 1, 2003 to April 30, 2013. However, from September 2005, the field management work became the main business, and the studio facility work became the incidental business (the Plaintiff’s share is 70%, and the business operator is 16%, respectively).

The work for the installation of red layers is.