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

A. On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered a medical corporation B (hereinafter “B”) on April 4, 200 and was working as the head of the gold department, and was found to be eroding workers at the processing team of B, around 13:20 on March 1, 2016, and was sent back to 119, and was diagnosed by the medical corporation, the Korean Medical Foundation Kimpo-han Hospital (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant.

B. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the instant injury and disease based on video medical data, such as TT, but did not confirm special occupational burden (e.g., rapid increase in workloads, excessive work load, stress, etc.) to the extent that it may cause cardio-cerebrovascular diseases prior to the occurrence of the duty, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as excessive working hours prior to the outbreak of the instant injury and the instant injury and disease to the extent of occurrence. The instant injury and disease are determined to be caused by natural aggravation, such as high blood pressure, etc., which is an existing individual disease, and thus, it is difficult to acknowledge proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the instant injury and the instant injury and the instant injury and the instant injury were determined to be non-approval (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on November 28, 2016.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the disease of this case occurred due to aggravation of health conditions by performing work under the long-term and high stress environment. Therefore, proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and disease of this case exists.