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

A. On August 7, 1995, the Plaintiff is an employee who entered the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Partnership Co., Ltd., and worked in a bus assembly and operation.

B. On May 8, 2012, at around 15:30, the Plaintiff complained of the helper during work and voluntarily withdraw the rest.

At around 18:30 of the same day, a worker in the same day transferred to an emergency room of the Jeonbuk-gu Hospital and was diagnosed as “cerebral resistant typhrosis.”

C. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that cerebrovascular constitutes an occupational accident, and filed a claim for medical care benefits. However, on September 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval that the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s cerebrovascular and the Plaintiff’s work cannot be recognized.

At that time, the Plaintiff filed a request for review and reexamination on the Defendant’s non-approval disposition, but the Defendant dismissed it, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee did not file an administrative litigation with the court on January 25, 2013.

On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that her cerebrovascular constitutes occupational accidents, and filed a new claim for medical care benefits. However, on June 11, 2013, the Defendant omitted the procedures for additional investigation on the ground that her cerebralcular constitutes a repeated claim with the same content, and again took a non-approval disposition.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] Gap’s 1, 3, and Eul’s 1, 2, and 4, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff continued to work for a long period exceeding 300 hours a month (70 hours a week) for three months prior to the outbreak of cerebral blood. Since such occupational course directly induced the plaintiff's cerebral blood, or at least aggravated existing diseases such as high blood pressure or urology with natural progress, causing a proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff's cerebral blood and the work.