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

A. The Plaintiff entered a stock company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted company”) in 1996 and was in charge of construction management at the construction site mainly.

B. On August 28, 2012, around 08:30, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed as “cerebrovascular transfusion (hereinafter “instant injury”) at the Gyeongbuk University Hospital due to the outbreak of symptoms with which the two parts and body cannot be accumulated well; and (b) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “cerebrovascular transfusion (hereinafter “instant injury”).

C. On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the outbreak of the instant injury constitutes an occupational accident, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, but on March 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the proximate causal relation between the instant injury branches is not recognized” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 14, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a healthy part of the Plaintiff’s work without any ordinary disease, and was working for at least 12 hours each day at the construction site and engaged in overtime work and holiday work from time to time.

Since July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff, as the director of the construction division, was changed to a position from July 1, 2012, was in general in charge of the overall field affairs of the instant site and increased responsibilities and duties, and worked on the site in the middle of the harsh period immediately before the outbreak. In relation to his duties, the overwork and stress accumulated due to the delayed construction due to the difficulties in demand and supply of materials, lack of field management personnel, conflict with the supervisory group, conflict with the supervisory group, and performance of the role as the vice-chairperson of the labor union, the above injury and disease should be recognized as occupational disease.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff’s business content is the Plaintiff’s new site C (hereinafter “instant site”) from October 201 to October 201.

From July 1, 2012, the head of the construction division has overall control over the management of the instant site from July 1, 2012.

The site of this case is located.