1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation in the appeal.

Details of the disposition

① On December 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was found to have been engaged in the business of delivering newspapers and collecting gold in the central one (hereinafter “instant place of business”) located in Seoyang-gu Seoyang-gu H, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu (hereinafter “instant place of business”). On December 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the brain cerebrovascular (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”) after being sent to the hospital.”

② On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits for the instant injury and disease.

③ On April 11, 2013, the Defendant did not approve medical care on the ground that “the instant injury or disease was judged to be naturally aggravated due to the personal risk factors, such as high blood pressure and drinking, and thus there was no proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work” on the ground that “the instant injury or disease was judged to have been in the active duty without confirming the medical stress and having been engaged in ordinary business without any unexpected or special reason in the course of the duty.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (hereinafter “instant disposition”), without dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether each of the dispositions stated in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 9 was lawful or not, continues for a long period exceeding four years, exceeding 13 hours a day, 30 minutes a week, and 77 hours a week, and the Plaintiff’s failure to recognize the instant disposition, even though there was a proximate causal link between the outbreak of the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s work, was unlawful, since other employees retired from office one month prior to the occurrence, have been in charge of mixing at least 2/3 of the delivery area of the instant workplace, and the instant injury occurred due to the occurrence of the instant injury, since there was a cumulative causal link between the outbreak of the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s work.

Facts of recognition

Around August 2008, the Plaintiff entered the instant workplace in the form of employment and working hours, and for the period of five years prior to that, the Plaintiff’s work is similar to the instant workplace.