1. On June 26, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for oriental medical care is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff is an employee who was employed in the Amateur Motor Vehicle Co., Ltd. and was engaged in the automobile assembly work. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff suspended work and received physical treatment in the medical office in the workplace due to the occurrence of pain and paralysis symptoms in the items of the work on March 15, 2012. On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of the escape certificate of estimated signboards between 4-5-6 and 4-5-6 at the Seoul C Hospital.

B. On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff, while performing work in the milch attitude behind flat trees, caused the escape certificate of a conical signboard between the 4-5-6 trend, and filed a claim for the medical care benefits for industrial accidents with the Defendant.

On June 26, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical treatment against the Plaintiff on the ground that “Around 4-5-6, even if the Plaintiff was engaged in any work that may impose a certain burden on the Bupyeong (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the Defendant’s refusal to grant medical treatment on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s medical treatment was not well-known inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s pressure on the 4-5-6

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On November 23, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination on the instant disposition, on an additional basis, stating that “In addition to the grounds for the first disposition against the Plaintiff, the 4-5-6 forecast signboard escape certificate of the Plaintiff is an individual’s departure path, and it cannot be found that there is a proximate causal relation with the business” (hereinafter “grounds for the second disposition”).

When the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination on the instant disposition, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the request for reexamination on April 5, 2013 with the same reasons as the Defendant’s ruling dismissing the request for reexamination.

【Reasons for Recognitions 1, 2, 3, 5, 9

2. Whether the secondary non-approval disposition is legitimate.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Defendant’s ground for the instant disposition was added to the grounds for the instant disposition in the process of the request for examination. However, the ground for the second disposition is not recognized to be identical to the grounds for the first disposition and the factual basis thereof.