The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 1988, the Plaintiff had been working in a mining station, etc., and served as a member of the relevant company B from July 20, 1992 to December 31, 2012 and from April 8, 2013 to December 31, 2016.

On February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the opening of the front line to the right line,” and received medical care from the Defendant as to the instant weather approved disease, from February 21, 2017 to February 28, 2019.

B. On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant additional injury”) diagnosed “blusium inside and outside the elbow joints and applied for an additional injury to the Defendant on January 2, 2019. However, on January 28, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to grant an additional injury and injury approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the disaster due to the dives of video materials.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Defendant, but was dismissed on June 26, 2019, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on November 5, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 9, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion during about 27 years and 4 months, the Plaintiff’s work and the instant additional injury and disease have aggravated beyond nature, while engaging in the Plaintiff’s work to impose heavy burden on vibration, impact, and load in the mining center. The additional injury and disease in the instant case are adjacent to the occurrence level of the instant existing injury and disease, and the Plaintiff was receiving several medical treatments on the instant additional injury and disease since the time when the Plaintiff was employed in the mining center, there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant additional injury and disease.

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