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

A. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a motor vehicle maintenance worker in Seo-gu, Incheon, filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the diagnosis of the name of the injury and disease, “Beng-gu’s salt and tensions accompanied by his/her pathic disease certificate, and other trend accompanied by his/her pathic disease certificate, and other trend of the 5- thousand emergency of his/her lag escape.”

B. While the Defendant recognized the climatic base and tension, on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the duties with respect to the climatic and other conical signboard escape symptoms No. 5-cheon 1, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a wind in the process of moving other fishing while performing the work of transferring the maintenance warehouse (a single string, moving one string) and started to feel a pain to the Arh self brupt, so the applicant’s disease ought to be recognized as an occupational accident.

B. The occupational accident under Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the worker's injury, disease, disability or death due to occupational reason, and in order to be recognized as an occupational accident, there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the occupational accident as well as the occupational accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee's work and the accident must be proved by the assertion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17226 delivered on February 25, 1997). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to recognize that the injury or disease in the instant case was caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the Plaintiff was employed on May 1, 2016 and his service period is less than five months.