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

A. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff worked at the construction site of the Sejong-type 1-5 Complex Center (hereinafter “instant site”) located in the Sejong-si Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Saeong-si”) in which the Plaintiff was employed as a first-service tree in the Hancheon-si Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Saeong-si”).

B. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) was found in the vehicle with 16:30 shicked from the vehicle while on duty; and (b) was sent to the hospital after being transmitted to the hospital; and (c) was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebrovasty, cerebrovascular, cerebrovascular, mathy, urine, and climatic pressure; and (d) claimed the Defendant for medical care benefits.”

C. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) confirmed cerebral typhism; (b) confirmed cerebral typhism without verification; (c) confirmed mathy, urology, and high blood pressure as an existing disease; and (d) determined that there was a low level of work as it was not verified whether there was physical or mental burden due to excessive work; and (b) decided not to grant medical treatment on the ground that the risk factor of personal urine naturally aggravated due to lack of management of high blood pressure and urology, etc., which are existing diseases, naturally aggravated and aggravated, and thus, the causal link between the applicant’s disease and the applicant’s disease cannot be recognized (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the request for examination, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was working without safety equipment at approximately 10 meters high at the time of the outbreak of “cerebral Color and Malithy” (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On December 2014, witnessed the crash accident of the same nuclear worker at early 2014, stressed on safety.

The plaintiff worked without any break time except for meal hours due to the relationship that must work at a speed, and was not easy for about 8 days a day.