1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2018 is revoked.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is working in the Korea Coal Corporation Korea Coal Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Coal Corporation”).

After retirement from office on May 15, 2014, at B Hospital (hereinafter “B Hospital”) on March 6, 2018, the Defendant was diagnosed as “the outer side felbow” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant.

B. As a result of examining the medical records and related images of the instant injury and disease, the Defendant confirmed the injury and disease in this case as follows: (a) observation of the partial sionion of the side of the side of the two sides outside of the MDR and the external pressure appeal and clinical opinion, etc. However, the instant injury and disease was diagnosed as a result of a considerable period of time in the Plaintiff’s work with a relatively significant burden of arms; and (b) the instant injury and disease status was determined as a result of natural progress changes due to the increase in age rather than the occurrence of the instant injury and there is no proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the instant injury and the duty were determined as a result of the determination by the Committee on Determination of Occupational Diseases on June 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that he had worked in the Ksung Mining Center for about 34 years and 1 months continued to perform his duties for a long period of time, and there was no other external factors that could have an influence on the injury and disease of this case, other than the mining operational power, and there was no other external factors that could have an influence on the injury and disease of this case, and a large number of dynamics who have filed for the same increase in the number of workers who suffered from the disease of the same quality, even if a proximate causal relationship is recognized between the plaintiff's duties and the injury and disease of this case.