1. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 8, 2015, the Plaintiff, who has worked as a paint, was suffering from an accident that was dissatisfing and falling off from a board while carrying out the painting of the first floor stairs at the construction contractor of multi-family house on February 8, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits inasmuch as “the extreme part-time satise” occurred due to the instant disaster. However, on March 20, 2015, the Defendant changed the application for medical care benefits to “the overside satise” on the ground that the satise was not verified.

C. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and injury to the Plaintiff, if “the extreme part of the instant disaster” occurred due to the instant disaster. However, on April 23, 2015, the Defendant did not approve the said additional injury and injury on the ground that it did not have any causal relationship with the instant disaster due to the fact that the said additional injury and injury and injury were withdrawn.

On August 18, 2015, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff carried out repeated work for the past 35 years, with heavy work tools in terms of the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s duties and continuous and repeated use of the shoulder part, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits for the injury and disease “the injury and disease in the instant case” (hereinafter referred to as “the injury and disease in the instant case”).

E. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s duties on the instant application branch.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is about 35 years, while working as a paint, and the Plaintiff was always going back to and out from two knits, uushes, rollers, and sphers at all times, and there was a lot of work in unstable attitude.

This work is unreasonable in the alley system such as a shoulder.