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

A. On October 26, 2013, when the Plaintiff was employed on May 14, 2013, an accident occurred where the right bridge fells on the ground and the right shoulders on the ground (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”). At around October 14, 2013, around October 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was serving as a member of the company’s camping association, and around October 14, 2013, the instant accident occurred.

B. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the field of the instant accident, the front door door door door door door door door door door heat, the right door door door door door heat, and the back door door door door.” After the instant accident, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the date of November 28, 2013.

C. On January 29, 2014, the Defendant approved only the injury and disease in the above application for the Plaintiff as occupational accident, and the injury and disease in the field of “the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the right opening, and the part of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening” (hereinafter “the injury and disease in this case”) was a disposition not approved on the ground that the disaster in this case and the causal relation with the Plaintiff’s business was not recognized due to the eurical path (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 3 through 6, 13, 14, 15, Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes an occupational accident that occurred due to the instant accident, which is an occupational accident, or an occupational accident that occurred due to the Plaintiff’s continuous burden of shouldering while engaging in the line duty for not less than 30 years, and thus, it should be approved as an occupational accident.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

B. In order to be recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there should be a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident, as well as the occupational performance, in order to be recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. In this case, the causal relation between the work and