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 August 14, 200, the Plaintiff became a member of the Company B and performed the automobile assembly work in the chemical plant, and around September 2004, the Plaintiff was approved by the Defendant as the Defendant’s “Pulnal Maculty Macul Macul Macul Macul Macul”.

B. Around January 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with respect to “the escape from a protruding signboard No. 4-5 in the Mestical base and the Mestical base,” and the Plaintiff obtained approval for medical care only with respect to “Mestical base,” and the medical care for “the escape from a protruding signboard No. 4-5 in the Mestical base,” was not approved.

C. On February 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care on the diagnosis of the “Plag escape certificate No. 4-5 in the summary (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). On April 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground of the result of the determination that “the Plaintiff’s request for deliberation by the Committee on Determination of Occupational Diseases, MRI, etc., confirmation of the applicant’s injury and injury in the video medical material, including MRI, and the details of the duty were observed in detail. However, considering the overall frequency of work and strength, it is determined that the degree of negative burden due to the relevant person’s injury is not high, and thus, the causal link with the duties of the applicant branch is not recognized.”

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this and filed a request for reexamination, but it was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was 15 years or more, and the Plaintiff performed the work pertaining to the automobile assembly process, while completing the vehicle language, at least 100 times a day, she should be aware of her intention repeatedly, and her work in a repetitive attitude and unstable manner.

The plaintiff's duty was caused by the duty of the injury and disease of this case due to the work that imposes a significant burden on the part of the court.