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

A. On December 17, 201, while the Plaintiff, as an employee of Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), was engaged in the business of dismantling films and moving films, the Plaintiff retired from the right-hand symptoms as of December 17, 201. On the following day, the Plaintiff took rest at the rest, and was diagnosed with brain border (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on April 2, 2013.

B. Accordingly, on July 11, 2013 after deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the volume of duties, intensity of duties, working environment, health conditions, and the developments of the outbreak at the time of the occurrence of the instant injury, the Plaintiff, as a shift worker, worked in an in-depth and continuous night duty with a long time, and accordingly, the instant injury was caused by accumulated overwork and stress.

Therefore, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s business branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s business. On a different premise, the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits was unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) On August 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the non-party company on August 1, 2010.

Upon the storage of materials ( films), the Plaintiff: (a) dismantled the materials ( films) and loaded them for lending and borrowing; and (b) performed the work of moving them to Dokk; and (c) from June 201 to June 3, 201, the Plaintiff first performed the work as 4 person 1, while performing the work as 3 person 1.

(b).