1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care benefits rendered against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was born and filed a claim with the Defendant for the first medical care benefits for the “in-depth visit” in the field of visit to the U.S. (hereinafter “in-depth visit”).

B. On February 4, 2013, the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “it was caused by the accident that occurred during the transport and pipeline work on the right shoulder, but there was no objective data to verify the exact fact of accident, and that it was caused by an unreasonable work before December 17, 2012, which was in accord with the initial medical care benefit disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the applicant rendered the first disposition of non-approval of medical care benefits for the reason that it was difficult to recognize the accident because it did not coincide with December 7, 2012, which was the date of the disaster, and it is medically difficult to view it as an acute outbreak in light of the MRI’s no acute and the eromatic infection and the erogateing opinion that it was difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with his duties.”

C. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review. On the ground that “The applicant caused this accident to the end of November 2012 and caused the aggravation of symptoms due to the second accident occurred on December 7, 2012,” the Defendant rejected the request for review on the ground that “It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the disaster as a chronic chronic rhetoric fever accompanied by a chronic rhetoric change, such as the renals and renals, etc. attached to the opening of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the year on the ground that it is not possible to recognize a proximate causal relation with the disaster.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2, Gap 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On July 23, 2012 to December 15, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion is 25 meters in diameter of 150 km in diameter, and 10-15 km in diameter at the site of the extension project located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City.