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

A. On January 6, 2014, while the Plaintiff was employed in Hamo-Man oil Co., Ltd. on February 1, 201 and was employed as a salesperson in Mamaart B, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on January 6, 2014, stating that “Around August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a telephone room with her husband on August 31, 2013, it was difficult to find that there was a significant causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury caused by infertility with her employees.” However, on February 27, 2014, the Defendant applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to find that there was a significant causal relation between the Plaintiff’s occupational injury and injury caused to the Plaintiff’s disease (hereinafter “the instant wound”).

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination and reexamination. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 29, 2014, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 24, 2014 on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the instant injury and disease.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. While the Plaintiff asserted that he had a business dispute over the promotion of the company on August 30, 2013, the designation of his salesperson and his additional work day, the Plaintiff made an insulting speech to the Plaintiff, such as “I need to leave if I want to do so if I want to do so,” and “I want to do so to do so to do so? I would like to do so to do so.” The Plaintiff suffers from serious occupational stress because it overlaps with the apprehension of actual duty, and it is 2:30 on the same day.