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

A. On August 1, 2004, the Plaintiff entered “C” through “C” to July 1, 2013, and was engaged in the tasks of production and intermediate management. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff attempted to lose the center of the Domination and use it as one of the parties, and was sent back to the hospital by the same fee. As a result of the close inspection, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “cerebrovassis (the trophe part on the left side), the right side paralysis (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

B. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground of the instant injury and disease.

C. The Defendant rendered the disposition of granting medical care benefits to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014 in accordance with the judgment of the Gwangju Occupational Disease Determination Committee on August 5, 2014, that “The proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and disease is not acknowledged, since it is judged that low-income diseases, such as high blood pressure, are naturally aggravated, without confirming the degree of occupational fault that may occur.”

On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff re-applicanted the Defendant for medical care benefits on the ground of the instant injury and disease.

E. On June 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition that “The injury or disease re-applicanted by the Plaintiff is the same as the first one, and thus, re-approval shall be non-approval” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked on Saturdays and Sundays for about 14 hours each day, except two days off a year’s holiday (the New Year’s Day and the New Year’s Day), and instructed the Plaintiff to go to the department, such as working for about 14 hours each day.

Since the injury and disease in this case occurred due to the above occupational negligence and stress or the existing disease has deteriorated beyond the natural progress rate, the disposition in this case which did not recognize a proximate causal relation between the work branch of this case and the plaintiff's work is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes.