1. The Defendant’s disposition of decision on medical care rendered to A on June 2, 2015 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2015, A filed an application for medical care benefits on the ground that, on May 16, 2015, the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s partner company, filed an application for industrial accidents on the ground that: (a) on the ground that, after cleaning of the substance, a large number of teams, such as oil, etc., are buried on the upper part of the wall in the enclosed-gu, Ulsan-gu; and (b) in the process of removing the wastes, such as oil, etc., from the upper part of the wall in the process of using the string washing machine, the string team, which was hot at the place where the strings end by contact with the string team, caused the industrial accident by visiting the image of the upper part in charge of the right-hand part (hereinafter “the video of this case”).

B. On June 2, 2015, the president of the Ulsan District Court notified the Plaintiff that he approved the Plaintiff’s medical care for pictures of the degree 2 to the right-hand section 2.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “A” did not notify anyone of the fact that he suffered the video of this case before the completion of his parliamentary work; that no employee who worked with “A” entered the video of this case; and that “A” cannot wear a picture when she wears a string of the string of the strings that he could not wear a string of the strings with the strings at the time of his work, considering that the images of this case suffered by A cannot be said to have arisen from his duties.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether A entered the instant images in the course of performing his/her duties at the Plaintiff’s partner’s workplace, the Plaintiff prepared a written statement to the effect that B’s director, who is the Plaintiff’s partner, suffered the images from A, and that A was receiving the treatment of the images at F’s expense on May 18, 2015, and the Plaintiff was the Defendant on June 1, 2015.