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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On July 5, 191, the Plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the instant disposition, and worked for a two-wheeled automobile company on May 30, 2009. The Plaintiff was suffering from or aggravated due to stress following the desired retirement.

In addition, the Plaintiff was under serious stress due to the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement from office as he was unable to properly perform his normal duties due to the improvement of his superior position even after the previous occupational accident management, and due to the occurrence or aggravation of the instant injury.

Therefore, the injury of this case constitutes “disease caused by occupational injury” under Article 37(1)2(b) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Facts of recognition

On July 5, 1991, the Plaintiff entered a two-wheeled automobile company on July 5, 1991. On March 19, 1995, the Plaintiff was transferred to the astronomical Logistics Center, and served for 18 years until he retired desired on May 30, 2009.

The plaintiff, on October 19, 2006, performed a health exercise that he gets tending at the health center of the astronomicalan Logistics Center on October 19, 2006 and applied for approval of an occupational accident due to the accident that the sprink of the health equipment fell from the head of the body on every set, and received treatment by the time of May 31, 2008, and received insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

On September 12, 2008, the Plaintiff caused an accident involving street trees while working at the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff applied for approval of an occupational accident with respect to the injury suffered therefrom, but the vehicle owned by the Plaintiff is used.

The accident caused and the right to use and manage the vehicle was not approved on the ground that the plaintiff had the right to use and manage the vehicle.

The plaintiff on September 12, 2008.