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 June 4, 2013, at around 21:20, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “cerebrovascular (hereinafter “the instant injury”). Around August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care approval with the Defendant on the grounds that the instant injury was caused by overwork and stress.

B. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to approve the Plaintiff’s application for approval of medical care on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for approval of medical care was not objectively confirmed, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for medical care was not objectively confirmed, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s medical history, such as high blood pressure and blood transfusion, and the occurrence of a sudden and difficult event related to the Plaintiff within 24 hours prior to the outbreak, and that the change in the workload, business intensity, responsibility, work environment, etc., and that there was an excessive physical or mental burden for three months or more, etc., and that there was no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff and the applicant’s disease.

C. The Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit against the instant disposition without going through the previous trial procedure.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was working as the first three assistant instructors and worked as the two assistant instructors from May 4, 2013 to May 2, 201; (b) the working hours were added four hours a day; and (c) the mental and physical division was accumulated as rhyth of the night and low living unit per week.

Even if a high blood pressure existed in the Plaintiff, as seen above, even if it was improved due to good faith treatment, the injury of this case occurred due to the rapid increase in the work volume as above, and the previous high blood pressure rapidly aggravated due to the occupational course and stress that occurred in the course of a sudden change in work, so the injury of this case has a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff.