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

A. From October 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was employed as a restaurant cook in SNP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SNP”) and worked in B cafeteria (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”). On January 19, 201, around 03:00, the Plaintiff was deprived of consciousness in the above cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria, and was diagnosed and treated as “brain color and heart heart” (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) as a result of the diagnosis.

B. On April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care approval on the ground that the instant injury was an occupational accident. However, on August 9, 2011, the Defendant rejected the application for medical care according to the Busan Regional Committee for Determination of Occupational Disease in the Area of Busan, stating that “The instant injury was caused by a merger of cardiopulmonary disease, and there is no proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s duty and duties, given that there was no significant risk factor such as night work, no significant increase in working hours, or obvious occupational stress factor, etc., and rather, there is a risk factor of cerebrovas disease such as cardiopulmonary disease, such disease was caused by a merger of cardiopulmonary disease.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”). (c)

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 25, 201.

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

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserted that the injury or disease in this case occurred due to cumulative work experience, excessive work hours, long-term continuous work, irregular work hours, and change of work in charge, etc. without any existing disease related to the injury or disease in this case. Thus, the injury or disease in this case should be deemed as an occupational accident, but the disposition in this case was taken on different premise.