1. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff suffered injury to vegetable drugs, in the process of performing the construction of the outer team at the construction site of the Jeonju Innovation City (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”) which was subcontracted from GS Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”). At around 21:30 on Jan. 15, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered from the damage of vegetable drugs from E, a man-made body at the construction site of the same construction site of this case (total length of 24 cm, 13 cm a day length) in excess of 306, the well-known body, a well-known body located at the construction site of Jeonju Innovation City Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant claiming that the injury was caused by an occupational accident.

On April 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant accident occurred during the course of drinking at a place of work after the completion of the work at the construction site, which constitutes a private disaster caused by emotional deterioration with the said worker, and thus cannot be recognized as an occupational accident.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was in charge of duties of a nature that may cause a third party's harmful act in the position of the team leader with the authority to manage and employ the position of the team leader for E, which is the team, and since E is realizing the risk with a knife, the plaintiff's injury suffered by the accident in this case has a proximate causal relation with the work performed by the plaintiff.