1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2012 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 23, 2011, the Plaintiff, as an employee of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), was found to be in excess of the dump truck garage, and was diagnosed at the hospital as “self-exploital cerebral Bribery” (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On February 8, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant.

B. On March 10, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize chronic or short-term path or stress on the part of the Plaintiff’s working hours and working contents, as it is not recognized as a sudden change of working environment, the instant injury and disease appears to be naturally occurring, and there is no proximate causal relation between the pertinent work.” After which the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits again on May 31, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the same ground as on June 8, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) while running dump trucks and vehicle maintenance duties, the division leader was promoted to the immediately preceding the disaster, and the physical and mental burden was increased. From October 24, 2010, which was three months prior to the disaster day, the average working day of October 24, 201, the Plaintiff increased to six days. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s disposition was made against the Plaintiff’s disease and the Plaintiff’s work environment during driving due to a dump truck’s dump driving and vehicle maintenance restrictions, etc. The weather conditions were not good, and the vehicle’s tension rate was high. The day of the disaster was very high on March 4, 201, which was average, and on September 8, 200, which was crashed from the outdoor vehicle maintenance work, and thus, the Plaintiff was found to have been in violation of the Plaintiff’s work and the instant work environment.

(b) relevant legislation;