1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 2016, the Plaintiff worked as a sponsor at the site of civil engineering works with the one section of access road B and one bridge.

원고는 2016. 10. 1. 현장 정리정돈 작업을 지시받아 이를 마치고 기다리다가 C가 굴착장비인 비트의 초경을 해체하고 있는 것을 보고 C를 도와 산소용접기로 비트에 박힌 초경을 빼내기 위해 가열하던 중 초경이 튕겨져 나와 원고의 안면부를 강타하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생하였다.

The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant by suffering injury of the “alleys, closeds, and interior walls of the part in which the details of the ductal and inner frame are unknown” due to the instant accident, and of the “alleys, closeds, and inner walls of the left side, and the structural frame, closeds, and face of the left side.”

B. On January 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the application for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant accident was an accident that occurred in the course of an individual’s private purpose and has no causal relation with his/her duties” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review to the Defendant, but dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff was injured by the accident in the instant case while performing the work of separating bits according to the direction of C, and did not know that C's act was a larceny unrelated to his work, and there was no fact that C conspired with C. Thus, the accident in the instant case constitutes an occupational accident because it was an act during the performance of duty or an necessary incidental act incidental to his duties, which constitutes an occupational accident. 2) The defendant's argument that C is conducting the work of separating bits that are not related to the performance of duties for private purposes, and the plaintiff is performing the above work of C.