2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From December 12, 1981 to December 7, 1994, the Plaintiff worked as a luminous source in ○○ Mining Center, △△△△△, △△△ Incorporated Company, etc.

B. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Plaintiff, claiming that the instant injury and disease occurred by performing for a long period of time the operation involving vibration, such as operating a rash mechanism, while working as a rash source in coal mines for about 21 years.

C. On October 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff in accordance with the Seoul Committee for Determination of Seoul Occupational Disease that “The Defendant did not recognize the instant injury since there was no color change in the coolant test conducted in the special diagnosis, and there is no proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and disease in this case for a considerable period of time since the exposure to vibration was set off.”

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on October 31, 2016 with the Defendant, but the Defendant decided to dismiss the request for review on or around January 2017. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on or around April 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while working as a mining source from around 1974 to around 21, from around 1994 while operating tools, such as cryp, dryp, traffic, and dump, during mining operations, had been exposed for a long time to harmful factors, such as suffering vibration from the body of the Plaintiff, including his fingers, by frequently performing vibration operations for a long time. for eight years, the Plaintiff was exposed to a strong vibration exceeding the European Union’s level of vibration exposure while carrying out mining operations using cryp source in the mine, and by using cryp beam, sn beam, fryp, fry, and dump in the mine. Considering that the disease of this case was conducted on the premise of occupational accidents, the disposition of this case was unlawful even though it was conducted on the premise that the disease of this case was conducted on the premise of occupational accidents.

B. Determination

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff retired from office as a mining source, and the hospital affiliated to △△ University shall be recognized as having received the diagnosis of the disease of this case at the hospital affiliated to △△ University.

However, the above macroscopic evidence, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 11, and evidence No. 2, and the following facts and circumstances that can be known by adding the whole purport of the arguments to the member of the Gun/Gu responsible for the examination of the member of the Gun/Gu, the result of the appraisal commission to the Gun/Gu in this court, i.e., the appraisal commission of this court, considering the result of the inspection of the Plaintiff, it is not obvious obstacle, objective or objective opinion not to be confirmed, and the Plaintiff received a special examination at the △△△△△ University Hospital. ② The result of the inspection of the coolant was that there was no change in the skin color, and ③ the Defendant advisory opinion also presented that the Plaintiff did not comply with the criteria for the examination of the disease in this case as the result of the special diagnosis, and ③ the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee also presented the Plaintiff’s opinion that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge the change in the body of the prosecutor in this case.

Therefore, as long as it is not recognized that the injury or disease of this case occurred to the plaintiff, the defendant's disposition of this case made on the same premise without examining further whether there is a proximate causal relation between the injury or disease of this case and the plaintiff's work is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

Judge Scarb