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

A. On July 6, 2002, the Plaintiff joined B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and served as a taxi driver.

B. Around 14:00 on February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff began to drive a taxi. Around 14:00, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed as “brain color and scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics

C. Accordingly, on August 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition, which rejected the application for medical care in accordance with the deliberation of the Busan Occupational Disease Determination Committee, to the effect that “It is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff,” and that “An applicant for medical care was confirmed, but the Plaintiff has the ability to urology, such as urology and dystropha, and smoke.” The Plaintiff took the instant disposition, which issued a non-approval of the application for medical care in accordance with the deliberation of the Busan Occupational Disease Determination Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff worked as a taxi driver for 14 hours from 2 p.m. to 6th a.m. without a separate legal holiday for about 8 years from August 1, 2004 without a separate legal holiday. The disposition of this case which did not recognize the disease of this case as an occupational accident is unlawful, despite the fact that the taxi driving and rhythm of living body during such a long period of time is disturbed and that the disease of this case was caused due to stress, or that the disease of this case was aggravated beyond the natural progress rate, due to stress.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s form of work and duties, etc. are limited to C Co., Ltd. from July 1, 1995 to January 1, 1996, and from November 1, 1996 to May 22, 2001.