1. On April 29, 2015, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 24, 1994, the Plaintiff became a member of the goldho Lake Co., Ltd. B factory, and has been engaged in the duties such as passive doping and fork driving.

B. From the beginning of October 2014, the Plaintiff received hospital treatment due to pains on the upper part of the lower part of the hospital. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “porizontal escape certificate No. 5-6 of the Gyeong-gu Gyeong-gu Gyeong-gu, the Gyeong-gu Gyeong-gu Gyeong-gu (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).”

C. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, and on April 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the instant disposition on the grounds that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s performance as a part of the duty of care due to the nature of the anti-doping work and the on-board driving work performed by the Plaintiff, and that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff continued to perform the duty of care to the extent that it would cause the instant injury and disease.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review to the Defendant on September 2015, and was dismissed on December 18, 2015, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff had been engaged in the duties of dynamic doping and on-board driving, etc. that give excessive group of 20 years at another factory. Accordingly, since the disease of this case is caused or aggravated, there is a proximate causal relation with the work of this case.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. The work in charge and work contents are as follows: (a) on April 24, 1994, the Plaintiff became a member of the factory APEX and post-frier on May 24, 1994; and (b) from February 7, 2006 to February 8, 2006, the Plaintiff has been engaged in the operation of the APEX and post-friering until February 8, 2006.