1. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care was revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the chief of the HE/MC production team of the HE/C production plant B (hereinafter the instant plant) and was diagnosed as “the ebbbbbow cutting (damage to land), the right upper part of the front part of the front part, the left part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the road, the left part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the subway station (hereinafter the instant common part) by suffering from the accident (hereinafter the instant accident) and suffering from the previous part of the electric vehicle entering the subway station located far away from the subway station around 23:30.

B. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constituted an occupational accident, and filed an application for the approval of medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the Defendant on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the business, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the said application (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the business.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination and a request for reexamination, but all dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was a line of extension of business, and the plaintiff was faced with the accident of this case while returning home according to the usual course of retirement immediately after the opening of the meeting. The accident of this case constitutes occupational accident.

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

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff entered the company of the non-party on February 8, 2006 and engaged in IT-related development and services. Before April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff took part in the “C Project” at the instant workplace located in Pyeongtaek-si from April 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant project”). The project was the same year.

8. It was scheduled to be terminated 14.

The project of this case.