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

A. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was enrolled in B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant place of business”) and was on duty. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was sent to the hospital after being written in a toilet and sent back to the hospital. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “cerebrovascular (hereinafter “instant injury”).

B. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of medical care benefits to the effect that the instant injury to the Defendant constituted an occupational disease, but the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on May 29, 2014 on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the instant injury to the business after deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [The ground for recognition] did not dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3 (including partial number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence 2 and 3, and the gist of the plaintiff’s assertion of legality of each disposition in Gap’s evidence 2 and 3, the plaintiff basically continued to work for 10 hours a day at the instant workplace, and even after his retirement, the plaintiff went to work again in the company in the event of a mechanical trouble operated for 24 hours a day after his retirement.

In addition, the head of the food room department has been much in charge of duties in the course of ordering foreigners and disabled persons to work, and the representative of the workplace of this case and the representative who manages the site of this case had a lot of stressed stress and demand.

In particular, at the time of the outbreak of the injury of this case, the basic education of the employees who want to newly work for production has been under great stress due to the failure of food equipment, and the number of overtime work has been overwork.

Therefore, the instant injury is caused by heavy work, or by overwork and stress due to a sudden increase in the burden of occupational burden during the short period prior to the occurrence of the instant injury. As such, since the Plaintiff’s work constitutes occupational accident that has aggravated beyond natural progress, it constitutes a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease.