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

On April 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits as “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

On September 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the said application on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff and the instant injury and disease.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the injury and disease of this case alleged by the Plaintiff was caused by the work of cutting down waste, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the duties and the occurrence of the accident, and the causal relationship must be attested by the party

The evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant injury was caused by the instant work or that the existing disease was aggravated beyond the natural progress, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the overall purport of the argument as a result of the request for appraisal of medical records to Korea University Ansan Hospital, the instant injury and disease appears to have been caused by the king or natural sediment change.

It cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the business and the injury and disease of the instant case.

The instant disposition taken on the same premise is lawful.

3. We cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion.