1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 24, 2015, while carrying out the duties of caregivers on duty, the Plaintiff received medical care from dementia patients during several times as an injury that meets the requirements for eating the chest, shoulder, etc. (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff provided medical care from January 25, 2015 to April 30, 2015 as the injury or disease of the field of satise satis, satise satise satis, satise satise satis, satise satis, satise satis, satise satis, and left-hand satise satis (hereinafter referred to as “catise satis”).

B. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care for the following additional diseases and additional medical care: (i) “(i) original flaps of wood bones accompanied by the nephalphalosis; (ii) a single nephalosis in detail; (iii) a part of the first part of the arms part of the left-hand part of the number; (iv) a nephical typitis of the shoulder; (v) a leapitis of the finger; (vi) other leapitis and flapitis; (viii) other disorder of the horses first part of the leapsis; and (viii) a erode and tension of the parts of the erode whose detailed losses are unknown (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant additional disease”); and (iv) an additional disease or additional medical care for each of the above numbers.

C. On September 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to grant additional medical care and additional medical care to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “As a result of the consultation with the doctor’s opinion inquiry, the applicant additional injury or disease caused by a sediative disease unrelated to the disaster situation and the previous approval branch, and the causal relationship between occupational accidents and the previous approval branch is not recognized, and it is difficult to recognize additional medical care accordingly.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the additional injury or disease of this case is recognized as a proximate causal relation with the disaster of this case or the injury or disease of this case.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that did not approve an additional injury or disease on a different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

나. 관계 법령 ▣ 산업재해보상보험법...