1. On April 21, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of additional injury and disease approval against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant for occupational accidents with respect to “an accident that was cut off from the stairs from the second floor office (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the occurrence of an accident that was cut off from the stairs (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “ageneous mental disorder” (hereinafter “the instant additional injury”) and applied for an additional injury to the Defendant on March 31, 2016.

B. On April 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the said application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to see that the instant additional injury and disease caused by a disaster have proximate causal relation with the previous approval branch, and it is determined that the pertinent additional injury and disease were caused by alcohol issues and brain function low accordingly.”

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was no particular mental health disorder prior to the accident, and it is difficult to view brain damage caused by drinking as the cause of the instant additional disease because it was impossible to drink alcohol after the accident, and thus, it is difficult to deem the instant additional disease as the cause of the instant additional disease. The instant additional disease is acknowledged that the causal link was caused or aggravated due to the shock caused by the instant accident and the cerebral surgery for the treatment of the injury and disease caused by the death of the victim of the mental disorder inherent in the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on a different premise.

B. According to the result of the commission of the physical examination of the head of the Sinsung University of this Court on the head of the Sinsung University and the result of the commission of the examination of the medical examination of the head of the Sinsan Medical Center of Korea University of this Court on the head of the Sinsan Medical Center of this Court, the general cause of the occurrence of the Sinsan Medical Center of the Mansung (Seoul) is the primary cause of brain wound, cerebral cerebral s