1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care was revoked on July 11, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff became a member of the company B and engaged in gold processing and other business. On October 5, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on October 12, 201, as the result of the Plaintiff’s failure to have both returned home from the Dogdo, and was in the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of the Jindo University Busan Matern Hospital (hereinafter “instant injury”).

B. On April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant, but on July 11, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion occurred while engaging in the gold processing business for about 14 years in a very large amount of machine noise, and the injury of this case was caused not to be satisfyed or satisfyed, and eventually, the injury of this case occurred. Since there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's work branch of this case and the plaintiff's work, the dispositions of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff was engaged in the same gold processing as the internal frequency from September 199 to January 2, 2012. Specifically, from September 1999 to December 2008, C Company was engaged in the same gold processing, from January 2009 to March 201, 201, and from April 201 to January 201, 201, from around January 201 to around January 201, B Company performed their respective duties.

B) The Plaintiff, at each of the above places of business, has been engaged in eroscopeing operations, such as a heavy amount of noise, ethyl thropulation, etc., and there was no other ear dog at the time of work. C) The working hours of Company B were 08:00 to 17:00 on ordinary day (day-day to day-day), and 08:00 to 15:00 on Saturdays, and the Plaintiff was working for an average of four days per week (17:30 to 21:30).

On the other hand, the plaintiff is about 10 hours a day at the previous workplace.