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

(a) On November 21, 201, the Plaintiff, as the executive director of a stock company B (hereinafter referred to as “A”) that carries on a business, such as the tetecian construction business, completed a report and meeting related to the construction work at the meeting site of the Busan Busan District Corporation, which was in charge of general management and field management, and was accommodated in the E hotel located in the Dong-gu, Busan District, Busan, on November 21, 201. On November 23, 201, the Plaintiff was found to have been aware of the fact that: (a) around 13:30 on November 22, 201, the Plaintiff was discovered from an elevator of 119 first-rises with a 119 first-tier vehicle, and was sent to the Yangsan District Hospital as a result of the diagnosis after the diagnosis of the fact that the Plaintiff was seriously in charge of brain domination in the face area and the fact that it was found to have been “the eculic disease” (hereinafter “the instant disease”).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, on July 23, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff and the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had high physical business strength for 3.75 hours per week prior to the occurrence of the disease in this case, and that the construction work in the air was difficult at the construction site in charge of the dispute resolution committee B, resulting in a lot of mental stress and suffering from considerable mental stress from the construction launch site, and caused the disease in this case. Even though the main cause of the disease in this case was not directly related to the occupational department, the main cause of the disease in this case overlaps with the main cause of the disease in this case and caused or aggravated the disease in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's work and the disease in this case are between the occurrence of the disease in this case.