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

A. On June 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered a limited company B (hereinafter “instant place of business”) and worked as a gold team worker at the production site. On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) was self-faced and sent to a medical institution for the diagnosis of “cerebrovascular and cerebrovascular surgery” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”); and (b) filed an application for medical care with the Defendant.

B. In examining the duty performed on October 24, 2016, the Defendant is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the applicant branch since there is no special occupational burden (such as a sudden change of work environment, sudden increase of work volume, excessive work volume, stress, etc.) to the extent that it is likely to cause cerebrovascular diseases, and it is difficult to deem that working hours were excessive to the extent of the outbreak, and it is difficult to deem that there is a reasonable causal relationship between the applicant branch and the work performed daily work.

The "Disposition" is referred to as the "Disposition of this case, which is not approved for medical care on October 24, 2016 according to the results of deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee."

A. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, Eul evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to raise the burden of the Plaintiff’s work as an employee retired from the same workplace two months prior to the date of the instant injury. The Plaintiff did not have any problem with the usual blood relationship, and did not drink or tobacco. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation with the instant injury.

Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. The occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational disease caused by the worker’s occupational performance while performing his/her duties. As such, there must be causation between the occupational and the disease caused by death, and at least there is no direct relationship with the performance of his/her duties.