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

A. From April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff worked as the head of the management office of the B apartment operated by the Seolim Housing Management Corporation, and resigned on July 31, 2015, upon recommendation of the council of occupants' representatives, and the same year.

8.6. 10:00 on June 10, high heat occurred, and the same month.

8. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits on May 11, 2016, alleging that there was a proximate causal link with his/her duties after receiving the diagnosis of the “Japanese Bribery” at the Ssynish Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “inbound disease”).

B. Accordingly, on September 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval for medical care to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appealed therefrom and filed a request for reexamination on April 11, 2017, but was dismissed on August 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the head of the management office works for approximately one year and three months, and the Plaintiff secured the cost of repairing the defects of the section for common use, compensation for damages caused by the prohibition of the operation of the headquarters from sunrise, compensation for damages caused by the destruction of the granite cancer, stress related to the claim for reimbursement of the previous workplace, recommendation post, etc., led to the applicant’s injury immediately after the retirement, and thus, it should be recognized as an occupational accident.

B. In order to be recognized as a disaster due to an occupational reason under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, there must be a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident of the worker, and in this case, the causal relation between the worker’s business and the accident should be proved by the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1726, Feb. 25, 1997). Above all, the applicant’s disease cannot be deemed as a vizine disease which is transmitted via the mother body, and it is difficult to view that there is a direct causal relation with overwork and stress, and even if so, there was a low immunity from stress.