1. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of the part of the medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on the part of the medical care, which is half of the right slot.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) that is going to move to the scamet floor in the process of safely taking a scamet in order to get out of the scamet at work site (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits with the Defendant as to “the Defendant’s scam scam, the right scam, the right scam, the right sckele, and the half scam in and outside the right scam.”

B. As to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2016, the Defendant approved and disposed of the Plaintiff by recognizing the proximate causal relation with the accident, but on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the accident with respect to the remaining injury, the Defendant rendered partial non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the causal relation with the accident cannot be found with respect to the “the instant injury” (hereinafter “instant injury”).

C. On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on June 22, 2017, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request was rendered on August 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence No. 6, the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the injury or disease of this case occurred due to the accident of this case, and the disposition of this case based on the different premise is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination is that the proximate causal relationship between the work and the disease for recognizing occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is proved by the assertion of such proximate causal relationship, but it is not necessarily required to be proved by medical or natural science, and it can be viewed that there is proof even in cases where there is a proximate causal relationship between the work and the disease in light of all the circumstances, such as the health condition of workers at the time, the developments leading up to the outbreak, the details