beta
Text
1. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of an additional injury or disease against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 20, 2017, at the construction site of a new building in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury to the Defendant on October 30, 2017, as to “the instant accident” caused by an accident that was cut down on the second floor of the second floor (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) and felled on the second floor of the building located in Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff was receiving medical care due to an occupational accident, such as “the external cerebrovascular, external hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal
B. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant approved an additional injury to the “alley and closed balone’s mouth” as an additional injury. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of an additional injury to the disease on the ground that the damage to the inner structure by the joints of ductal pansium was not clearly verified, and that the right-side farming condition was caused by chronic marrosiss.
C. On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on this issue, and the Defendant revoked the original disposition against the right-of-the-hand chronic fitness room, on the ground that “A disaster causing considerable shock to two parts at the time of the instant accident, which is linked to the right-hand emulsion, was observed from the video data of the Plaintiff, and that there was a shock to the right-hand emulsion due to the instant accident.” However, on the left-hand emulsion room (hereinafter “the instant injury”) on the ground that “the right-hand emultive fitness room has no causal relationship with the instant accident,” and that the request for review against the instant injury was dismissed.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of non-approval for the injury and disease”). D.
The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.