1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion added by this court

A. The relevant statutes are as stated in the attached Form “related statutes”.

B. Dangerous acts and occupational accidents by East Workers 1) the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 14933, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The term “occupational accident” under Articles 5 and 37(1) refers to an employee’s injury, disease, disability, or death due to occupational reason. In a case where an employee suffers from an occupational accident due to an act of violence, etc. between the perpetrator and the victim, or where the victim, beyond the limit of his/her duties, is unable to be deemed an occupational accident, and thus, cannot be deemed an occupational accident. If there is a proximate causal relation with his/her duties as a reality of human relations or risks inherent in, or ordinarily accompanying, in the workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da12408, Jul. 28, 201). 2) The Plaintiff’s argument or evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is that the disease of this case is inherent in, or ordinarily accompanying, human relations or duties in the workplace, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently as an “occupational accident” under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Article 37(1)2(a) and (b) of the same Act).

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.