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

A. On October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) was a person who was employed and worked as an assistant for painting; and (b) on February 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care to the Defendant with the Defendant, claiming that he/she was suffering from pain on the shoulder of the Do in which the paint was loaded in order to put the paint into the machinery; (c) he/she applied for the medical treatment of “the instant injury or disease” in the field where the paint was loaded.

B. Accordingly, on April 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the proximate causal relation between the instant shopping branch and the Plaintiff’s business cannot be recognized” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, overall purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On February 11, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the steel shed, while drawing a seal stamp, was exposed to an accident that had been set up more than 5 meters from the official nature, while moving the paint. The instant disposition based on the premise that there was no causation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and disease of this case is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination is that “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident resulting from an employee’s occupational performance while performing his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relationship between the employee’s occupational and the accident. In such cases, the causal relationship between the employee’s occupational and the accident must be attested by

Although proximate causal relation is not necessarily required to be clearly proved by direct evidence, it should be proved to the extent that the proximate causal relation between work and accident is likely to be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, nature of work engaged, work environment, etc. based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant worker.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Du12185 Decided August 30, 2016). (2)