1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of an additional injury or disease against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2012, around 09:30 on May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident where an article of Pokele, who had been engaged in the extraction of pine trees in the site of individual single-family housing construction work in Chuncheon-si B and 2 lots of individual single-family housing (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) caused the Plaintiff to lose consciousness by shocking his body, hair, scare, kne, etc.

The Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant upon receiving the approval of medical care from the Defendant due to the above accident (hereinafter referred to as “insured-authorized disease”). The Plaintiff received from the Defendant the injury (hereinafter referred to as “insured-authorized disease”), such as “the brain-proof, the left-hand check-up, and salted fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoralum, the left-hand fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral f

B. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that an additional injury or disease (hereinafter “instant additional injury or disease”) called “satisfying satitis on the left side” occurred due to the instant accident and filed an application for medical care benefits therefor.

C. On October 11, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the instant additional injury and disease.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant additional injury was caused by the Plaintiff’s damage to the steel pelle on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s previous injury, which caused the damage to the steel pelle on the left-hand side of the previous injury.

Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the instant additional injury and the instant additional injury and thus, the instant disposition that deemed that there was no proximate causal relationship between them was unlawful.

(b) The terms used in this Act under the related Acts and subordinate statutes shall be defined as follows:

1..