1. The Defendant’s chronic salt duplicing dysium on February 25, 2014, among the Plaintiff’s disposition of non-approval for medical care, is left-hand.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 8, 2000, the Plaintiff joined a two plant that is Hyundai Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and worked in B Engine BE11 process by September 2013.

B. From November 201, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a pain to the left shoulder, and was subject to pharmacologic treatment by a member affiliated with the non-party company from November 20, 2012, and on September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on September 7, 2013, after receiving a diagnosis of “the instant 1,2, and 3th disease (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant injury diseases referred to as “the instant case’s injury”).” from the hospital’s hospital around November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a culse dynasium’s injury to the backline dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on September 7, 2013.

C. Accordingly, on February 25, 2014, 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 Plaintiff’s work branch of the instant shopping district and the Plaintiff’s business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) since becoming a member of the non-party company, the Plaintiff performed assembly work; (b) around June 2012, in the course of the Plaintiff’s entry, and from around June 2012, in the course of the Plaintiff’s installation of ATF heading and the exhausting of ship ships, the parts are assembled and installed with weight of 8 km, power on the left side; (c) a ice was installed in the engine; (d) the Plaintiff was able to reduce the left hand to bear a burden on the left side; and (e) the Plaintiff was a member of the non-party company, who did not fully write the right hand, and thus, the burden on the left side was increased, and thus, each of the disease of this case was a causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work.

Therefore, this case is contrary to this.