1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant against the Plaintiff on the right side of the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 21, 2014, the Plaintiff was at the construction site located in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu, and was faced with the right shoulder on September 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff received a RI test from the C Hospital, and transferred it to the D Hospital. The Plaintiff was diagnosed by D Hospital as “damage to the freshed body and power lines of shoulder shoulder belts, damage to the gresh of heat and other arms, damage to the gredys of the gree, and loss of the gredys of the gred body of the gred body,” and was subject to the diagnosis by D Hospital on October 2, 2014.

On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that “the damage of the erode to the erode, the right part, and the right part to the right part” was not approved on November 4, 2014 by the Defendant on the ground that “it is recognized that the erode was extremely high, but it is judged that the erode was damaged by the existing damage or the erosion, and that the damage of the right part to the right part to the right part was unrelated to the instant accident, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s business and the Plaintiff’s business.”

(2) The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the Defendant on November 17, 2014, but was dismissed on February 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of Gap's 1, 2, 9, 14 through 19, 22, 25, and 37, and Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to whether the disposition of Gap's whole argument is legitimate is legitimate, since the accident of this case occurred due to the accident of this case or the existing disease has rapidly aggravated beyond natural progress, a proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the plaintiff's work and the injury and disease of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

The attached details of the relevant statutes shall be as specified in the statutes.

Facts of recognition

The work details and the circumstances before and after the instant accident.