1. The revocation of the medical care non-approval disposition regarding the right part of the instant lawsuit concerning the right part.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 1986, the Plaintiff joined Pyeongtaek-si Port-ro 92 (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) and has been in charge of preparing C business as a full-time employee from B team C by March 19, 2012.

B. On June 12, 2012, at the E Hospital located in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the field of back-to-face rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture ruptures, the right side ruptures, and the right side rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture ruptures, and on December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant: (a) confirmed and deliberated on the content of the accident investigation and medical opinion, etc.; (b) based on the MIM’s medical opinion and fact-finding that the obvious change of the disease in the application is not confirmed; and (c) based on the precision inspection’s medical opinion and fact-finding, the instant injury and disease applied by the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-approval of medical care for the reason that it is not recognized as an occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on the instant disposition with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, but was dismissed on the ground that “the left-hand check box approved by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to the MRI is observed higher than the middle wave, but the right-hand check box is observed only on the extreme side, and considering the age of 55 years old, the instant injury disease cannot be deemed to have a proximate causal relation with its business.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense of this case revoked the disposition of this case and approves some of the injury and disease of this case.