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

A. On January 4, 1996, the Plaintiff became a member of Taewon Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and worked as a taxi driver. On March 19, 2014, around 15:40, the Plaintiff: (a) arranged taxi commission by the Nonindicted Company; (b) divided the company’s taxi drivers and talks with that taxi drivers; and (c) sent back to the hospital with the hospital, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease.”

B. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that the above injury or disease constitutes an occupational accident. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that: (a) there was no occupational course or stress prior to the outbreak against the Plaintiff; and (b) the instant injury or disease was deemed to have occurred due to the natural dynamic wave of the existing brain beeculsis; and (c) there cannot be a proximate causal relation between the process of occurrence and the injury or disease.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was about 21 years and 21 months, and the Plaintiff was a driver of a taxi for business purposes, and the Plaintiff was constantly in need of tension and concentration, the nature of driving duties, the burden on taxi commission, the form of work that overworks the physiological rhythm of the two-time navigations at night, and the conflict arising from the conflict between the non-party company and the virtual rhym system, which led to a high blood pressure increase in the middle of overwork and stress. The disease of this case occurred or the existing disease aggravated beyond the natural progress rate due to the nature of the above duties.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff's business branch of this case and the plaintiff's business, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) recognition;