1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was employed in the unlimited partnership company and was engaged in the taxi driving. On March 12, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant injury and cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebrovascular” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). As long as he/she was trying to operate a taxi on or around 11:00 on March 12, 2013, he/she was diagnosed as a result of the hospital.

B. The Plaintiff applied for medical care by recognizing the outbreak of the instant injury as an occupational accident. However, on August 11, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the occurrence of the instant injury was aggravated due to the natural progress of the existing disease.

C. Although the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for reexamination, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the petition for reexamination on May 18, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was re-employment before the occurrence of the instant accident, and the injury to the instant injury occurred due to accumulated stress and stress arising out of duty by running a taxi at night for about three years in day and night. Therefore, the accident is an occupational accident.

B. The plaintiff seems to have performed ordinary driving duties as a taxi engineer.

(2) Within 24 hours prior to the outbreak, there was no sudden and difficult occurrence of a case related to work or a sudden change in the work environment, and the day preceding the outbreak took place as a leave, and there was no special increase in the work volume or work hours for one week prior to the outbreak and for three months.

③ In light of the health examination, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “high blood pressure, abnormal geological blood transfusions, suspected of suffering from urine diseases.” From May 31, 2009 to July 16, 2009, and from January 10 to January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spon,” and the parents had a family record of cerebral cerebral cerebral Spon.

④ On May 31, 2009, the Plaintiff is in charge of taxi driving under another company’s jurisdiction before entering the Geum River-si company.