1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on April 11, 2018 after undergoing a diagnosis. B. On July 6, 2018, the Defendant’s examination of the Plaintiff’s medical records and medical film data, but it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s failure to verify the fact, and it is possible to verify the part of the table of the check, the part of the table of the check, and the part of the table of the check, and the part of the table of the table of the two sides of the check, “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was unable to work after his death on May 2014; (b) the date of the diagnosis of the instant injury has expired for a considerable period from the date of the above death; and (c) the Plaintiff was under medical care with the approval of the medical care prior to the diagnosis of the instant injury; and (d) the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff

'The disposition of this case' is 'the disposition of this case' for reasons of the decision not to approve the medical care.

(c) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on December 13, 2018. 【The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been repeatedly carried out work that imposes a burden on the part of the long-hour shoulder while carrying out the duties of collecting coal and digging in the mining center for about 26 years from around 1988 to May 2014.

The above duties of the plaintiff are included in the criteria and scope of the work that imposes a burden on the fundamental framework prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and other relevant statutes and public notice.

In addition, the plaintiff has been under continuous treatment due to a shoulder pain, etc., which led to aggravation of its symptoms, which led to the diagnosis of the injury or disease of this case.