1. On June 23, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition for non-approval of part of the medical care rendered against the Plaintiff No. 11, which was “Ch. 11.”

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff worked as a caregiver at the Daegu Seo-gu Medical Care Center, Daegu-gu, and around February 10, 2014, around 07:40, the Plaintiff was faced with a disaster (hereinafter referred to as “the disaster in this case”).

B. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the pressure pressure pressure table of the 11th chest, the pressure table of the 5th order, the semi-consection pressure table on the right slot, the semi-consection pressure table, the right bed, and the right bed,” and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on March 7, 2014, but on April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care on the ground that the causal link with the instant disaster was not recognized with respect to all of the claimed soldiers against the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Plaintiff. The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee”) of the injury and disease applied for as a result of the review, recognized the “satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise and right satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise” as an occupational accident, and rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical treatment “satise satum” (hereinafter”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 10, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was plicked and plucked one time following the instant accident.