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

A. From January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was working as security guards at B (Training Institute). On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff retired from work at night on night on and around 07:30, and went to work at his own home, and was sent by a 119 first-aid vehicle, and was diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease.”

B. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but on October 20, 2015, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that there was no chronic fault or stress to the extent that the instant injury and disease could have been caused, and that there was no proximate causal link with the instant injury and disease.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion from around 2012, the Plaintiff worked in the field of night watch and became worse and accumulated as thrhys.

In addition, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Chief of Guard C while serving as the Chief of Guard and was de facto demoted, and was under stress upon C’s retirement from office.

Since the injury or disease of this case was caused by excessive work and stress, the injury or disease of this case of this case has a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's work.

B. Fact-finding 1) The work in charge, work contents, and the Plaintiff had worked as security guards from January 1, 2010 to June 4, 2015. The Plaintiff had worked as day-time guards from day-day to day-day (07:0 to 19:00 for day-time work, and 19:00 for day-time work, from day-day to day-day, to 07:00 for day-day from day-day to day of Sundays. The Plaintiff had worked as day-day from June 1, 2015 to June 4, 2015 (the day-day work to day-day).