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

On June 30, 1971, the Plaintiff entered B, and retired from office on June 30, 2008 through C and D. On September 2, 2015, at the Central University Hospital, and on November 24, 2015, filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant after receiving a diagnosis of each “Escopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scops” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

On October 20, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the time of retirement of the Plaintiff’s mine was about seven years since the date of the instant injury and disease, which was about seven years since the date of the instant injury and disease, and considering the fact that the Plaintiff possessed urology due to a low-income disease, it is not highly related to work” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on February 15, 2016, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for reexamination on May 26, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleading is as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the Plaintiff used heavy vibration tools in the ship’s field for not less than 4 hours a day while working in the ship’s field B, etc. for not less than 32 years, operated the log shock bell rapidly and rapidly, and was in charge of the business imposing a burden on the part of the wound of this case in the course of repeated operation of the horse and insertion, etc. in order to cover the knife, and caused the Plaintiff’s duty to bear a heavy burden on the part of the wound of this case. Thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff’s duty was partly caused by the main cause of the injury of this case’s disease of this case, or by worsening the

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

Judgment

1. The term "occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act" means an accident caused by an employee's work while performing his/her duties, so there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident.