1. On August 14, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of additional injury and disease approval against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff received the medical care approval from the Defendant on September 30, 2018, with respect to an accident falling off by cleaning a cleaning vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), with respect to “it is a salt base and tension, a peltolley, a peltoro, a salt base and tension in the peltoro, and a gymal ppuri disease (No. 4-5 and No. 5-O. 1) accompanied by the nephical ppuri disease” (hereinafter “the instant weather-approval disease”).

B. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the blood plate decrease certificate” (hereinafter “the instant additional injury”) and applied for additional injury and disease to the Defendant on June 29, 2018.

C. On August 14, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to approve the additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant additional injury and disease lack of causations with the previous approval branch of the instant case, and it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’s pertinent work to cause the disease.”

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on January 3, 2019. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on June 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Even though the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant additional disease was not directly caused by the Plaintiff’s work or the injury caused by the instant disaster, it was generated by drugs, such as antibiotics used in the surgery and treatment process due to the instant disaster.

Therefore, although the Additional Injury Disease in this case is deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the previous approval branch due to the disaster in this case, the defendant's disposition of this case, which had different premise, should be revoked as unlawful.

B. In fact, the Plaintiff, from August 3, 2016 to August 19, 2016, goes to the B Hospital.