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

A. On July 5, 1991, the Plaintiff joined a two-wheeled automobile company and worked on May 30, 2009, and was forced to retire. On June 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having been diagnosed by the Embsia (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On July 15, 2009, the Plaintiff was at the Yancheon National University Hospital of Macheon-do with severe two copies and chest pressure while receiving the re-employment training.

B. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the instant injury, but the Defendant, on March 6, 2014, did not approve the application on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the instant injury on the ground that it was judged that the instant injury or disease was natural aggravation of the existing disease, and thus, was not recognized

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review to the Defendant on August 13, 2014, but was dismissed on August 13, 2014, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on January 9, 2

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On July 5, 1991, the Plaintiff asserted that he was employed by both parties to work for a company that entered the company of two vehicles, and made a desired retirement on May 30, 2009, and that the injury or disease of this case was caused or aggravated due to stress following the desired retirement, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation with the injury or disease of this case.

B. Fact 1) The Plaintiff’s content of work and the Plaintiff’s outbreak were employed for both automobile companies on July 5, 1991. On March 19, 195, the Plaintiff transferred to the astronomical Goods Distribution Center on May 30, 2009, and served for 18 years until he retired desiredly on May 30, 2009. The Plaintiff worked for 5 days per week from 08:30 to 17:30 on average day (the core period was one hour, the extension period was 18:0 to 2-3 hours, and the extension period was 18:0 to 2-3 hours during the extension period was 3 months prior to the occurrence period was 3 months prior to the occurrence, and there was no fact that the work was not performed normally.

On May 30, 2009, the Plaintiff retired desiredly from office, and on June 2009, at the Pyeongtaek-si Cultural Institute for Police Officers, the prospective retirees of two motor vehicles.