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

A. On April 21, 1985, the Plaintiff (BB and male) joined Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) and is in charge of the C production work using timber from March 10, 1993 to the date.

B. From around 2006, the Plaintiff was sleeping on the Huuribu, and around May 2, 2014, at D Hospital and Ulsan National University Hospital, where the pain was serious, applied for medical care to the Defendant on October 2, 2014 based on the results of the diagnosis. The part Nos. 1-4 of the 1-5 vertebrate Embrate No. 2-5 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant injury and disease”), and the part No. 4-5 in the vertebrate No. 2-5, and the Defendant applied for medical care to “the instant injury and disease.”

C. However, on December 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the first injury and disease in the instant case was not observed, but on the ground that, although the second injury and disease in the instant case were recognized as having low relevance to the business, it was merely a part of the fact that there is no proximate causal relation between the business and the business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been carried out in the non-party company for a period of time in the production of C by using timber. There are many cases where the Plaintiff moves heavy timber while carrying out his/her duties, or works with a well-known person in the process of doing so.

This led to the continuous burden on the part of the plaintiff's main body, and as a result, the change in the plaintiff's low vertebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate was proceeding rapidly compared to the age, resulting in the injury and disease of this case.

Therefore, although the injury and disease of this case had a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's work, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. In fact, the Plaintiff’s recognition of the past medical care approved on April 21, 1985 entered the Plaintiff’s contact with Nonparty Company and entered the same in the name of the cabin book.