1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of an additional injury or disease against the Plaintiff on October 31, 2019 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 1974, the Plaintiff worked in the mining area located in the mining area. From October 15, 2012 to August 12, 2017, the Plaintiff worked in the mining area located in the mining area located in the mining area located in the mining area of the Korea Coal Corporation from October 15, 2012.

From August 4, 2017 to February 13, 2020, the Plaintiff received the approval of medical care with respect to “from August 4, 2017 to February 13, 202, the Plaintiff was receiving the approval of medical care with respect to “the strain of all floors preceding the openings, the coordinates and the right-hand side of the unit and the right-hand side, the upper part of the unit and the right-hand side, and the upper part of the unit and the right-hand side.”

B. On August 29, 2019, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on August 29, 2019 (hereinafter “the additional disease in this case”), and applied for an additional injury or disease to the Defendant. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the semi-information in both slots, the first half of the half of both slots, the first half of both slots, the first half of both slots, the first half of both slots, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, and the second half of the year.”

(c)

On October 31, 2019, the Defendant’s failure to accept the Plaintiff’s application on August 29, 2019, as it is difficult to prove that the degree of injury and disease to the Plaintiff’s application was not yet available in the state of his duty.

“The instant disposition was rendered on the ground of the non-approval of the injury or disease (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had been working in the mining field for about 47 years, and used a tool with a high scare knee or knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee, and the defendant's disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff's above work and the additional disease of this case are considerably related to this, should be revoked.

(b) Determination 1) Additional injury or disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act requires medical care as it is further discovered due to occupational accidents.