1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 15:00 on December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as an employee of the non-party company non-party company located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “non-party company”) for medical care benefits for the injury and disease of this case (hereinafter “the injury of this case”) and was diagnosed as the “non-party company non-party company suffering from kneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (hereinafter “the accident of this case”). The Plaintiff was diagnosed as an employee of the non-party company located in the non-party company located in Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “non-party company”). The Defendant applied for medical care benefits for the injury and disease of this case.

B. Accordingly, on August 8, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition, which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for medical care on the ground that both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s injury and disease applied for in light of MRI and Mescisical opinions were an occupational disease unrelated to external wounds.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review to the Defendant, but was dismissed on December 2014, and again, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee made a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on March 6, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that he had no knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne

Even if the Plaintiff had an existing disease, the injury of this case was caused by the Plaintiff’s physical burden to rapidly proceed with the existing disease beyond the natural progress speed.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, including the content of the Plaintiff’s business, entered the Nonparty Company and was engaged in the process of concluding rubber lids.

The duties performed by the plaintiff are weak from the work group.