1. On April 22, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2004, the Plaintiff is a worker who became a member of the Seongdong Industrial Co., Ltd. and conducts the quality control and field management of future containers.

On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized on August 24, 2012 due to a traffic accident around 19:00 (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). The Plaintiff was hospitalized on the left by August 24, 2012, due to the injury of the left-hand main part of the relevant traffic accident, such as thalphe, thalin, and salphe base.

On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff returned to and worked for the company, and was written at his own home and transferred to an emergency room during the preparation for attendance at around 06:50 on October 18, 2012, and was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebrovascular in the Chuncheon High Hospital of the Korea National Forestry University.”

B. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that he/she applied for medical care benefits with the Defendant as “cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebrala, and the Defendant rendered non-approval on the application for medical care benefits on April 22, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff’s occupational cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Maca was an aggravated factor.”

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【In the absence of any dispute, there is no ground for recognition, Gap’s 1 through 6, Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the disease of this case occurred due to a sudden pressure increase due to stress caused by early work and overtime work while working for 16 days in light of the company's working conditions even though the plaintiff was diagnosed as brain dead due to the traffic accident of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful, even though it is related to the work, since it constitutes an occupational accident.

(b) this case in the relevant legislation.