1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care rendered to the deceased on February 9, 2012 is revoked.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 24, 2011, the network A (hereinafter “the network”) served as daily workers at the construction site for multi-family houses located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si (hereinafter “instant site”).

On October 26, 2011, the Deceased worked at the site of this case on October 26, 201 and completed work preparation. At around 08:00 on the same day, the Deceased showed abnormal symptoms, such as the horse is divided into two parts, and the World Cup is damaged.

On October 26, 2011, the Deceased transferred to an emergency vehicle and passed through the Hanmagu Hospital, and was diagnosed by Samsung Changwon Hospital as “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

B. On December 1, 2011, the Deceased applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant. However, on February 9, 2012, the Defendant rejected an application for medical care for the Deceased on the ground that “The instant injury appears to have occurred regardless of his/her duties, given that there were no objective circumstances that may cause the instant injury and disease at the site of the instant case, given that the instant injury and disease did not appear to have occurred,” the Defendant appears to have applied for medical care on the ground that “the instant injury and disease appears to have occurred regardless of their duties.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

The Deceased, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination or review, but was dismissed by the Defendant on June 1, 2012, and was dismissed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on August 31, 2012.

The Deceased died on December 29, 2012, while the first instance trial was pending, and his father, B and C took over the instant lawsuit.

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

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the injury or disease of this case occurred on credit, and the Deceased did not receive any treatment with respect to the injury or disease of this case prior to the occurrence of this case.

The Deceased was living in the same manner as that of ordinary peace.