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

A. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebral cerebrovassis (hereinafter “the instant accident”) with an unidentified for about 30 minutes, and applied for medical treatment to the Defendant on December 14, 2012, when he/she had been employed by a limited liability company B (hereinafter “instant workplace”); and (b) applied for medical treatment to the Defendant on November 14, 2012.

B. On February 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff according to the results of deliberation by the Gwangju Occupational Disease Determination Committee, stating that “The Defendant is confirmed to have performed ordinary duties in a short-term and chronic course to the extent that the Plaintiff’s duty, period of service, medical record, doctor’s opinion, advisory opinion, etc., and that “The proximate causal relation between duties and injury and injury to the Plaintiff is not recognized, as it is confirmed that it performed ordinary duties in a short-term and chronic course to the extent that it would have a significant impact on the brain or blood transfusion, and it is determined as a personal

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but all of which were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff carried out the sales and painting of large-scale vehicles at the instant workplace, and the number of working personnel is not sufficient to take sufficient time to rest, etc., and the Plaintiff was exposed to organic compounds, etc. in the course of painting work, which was off from the page of the vehicle.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and disease of this case, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on different premise.

(b)as shown in Appendix 1 of the relevant statute.

C. Determination is prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.