1. On June 12, 2018, the Defendant’s refusal to grant medical treatment to the Plaintiff on the “protruding up of the 4-5th Twitthical test” among the measures that the Plaintiff did not grant medical treatment.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 16, 2013, the Plaintiff is a worker who became a member of a stock company B (hereinafter “foreign company”) and carried out the PCB’s transport business.

나. 원고는 2017. 11. 8. 소외 회사 작업장에서 30~40kg 의 PCB 동판 뭉텅이를 들다가 허리를 삐끗한 후(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다) 2017. 11. 17. C병원에서 ‘제4-5요추간 추간판탈출증, 제5요추-제1천추간 추간판탈출증, 요추부 염좌’(이하 통칭하여 ‘이 사건 상병’이라 한다)로 진단받아 피고에게 요양급여신청을 하였다.

On June 12, 2018, the Defendant: (a) comprehensively takes into account the Plaintiff’s work performance period, work contents, frequency and strength; (b) the Plaintiff’s physical burden; (c) confirmed the disease in this case on the medical record; (d) it is difficult to recognize the causal link between the Plaintiff’s occupational disease review result, and the Plaintiff’s work performance result and the Plaintiff’s diversity test result and the diversity test result in comparison with the past film data; and (e) it is difficult to recognize the causal link between the Plaintiff’s work and the diversity test result in comparison with the past film data.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was accompanied by the 'new ppuri disease certificate' in the past.