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 26, 2006, the Plaintiff joined Gwangju Factory Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff joined the Warsaw 2 until June 2, 2009, and was engaged in the business of assembling Sclers in the Warsaw 2A, and from June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of assembling Sclers in the Doro 2A.

B. On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, while working in a state of approximately 45 degrees chilling head, was treated on the upper part of the neck, and was diagnosed by the hospital, and was diagnosed by the rash’s base and tension, Nos. 4-5 and 5-6 of the rash’s base and the rash escape certificate.

C. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant applied for the above injury or disease, and on November 26, 2014, the Defendant approved the medical care for the salt and tension of the Woman. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s duty cannot be deemed to be the work to be borne by the items to the extent that it would cause the above injury or disease, and that there is no proximate causal relation between the duties and the injury or disease, the instant disposition was rendered without approval on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the duties and the injury or disease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was engaged in the process of fish assembly that excessively causes an excessive group in the field of the automobile plant, and the occurrence or aggravation of the disease of this case was caused, so the defendant's disposition of this case based on a different premise is unlawful, notwithstanding the existence of proximate causal relation between the work of the main branch of this case and the business of this case.

B. On June 26, 2006, the Plaintiff entered Gwangju Factory Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff, who was in charge of the fact of recognition 1, and was engaged in fluor assembly in Shabab 2 Sabab by June 2, 2009. From June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff was engaged in Dono 2A assembly.

On June 3, 2009, the process of Dogra, which the Plaintiff had conducted from June 3, 2009, is to assemble the front door of the vehicle by dividing into three parts by a total of 42 persons.