1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 주식회사 B(이하 ‘이 사건 사업장’이라 한다) 소속으로 근무하던 중 2017. 6. 11. 10:40경 띳장 널빤지로 만든 울타리에 가로로 댄 띠 모양의 재목 위에 올라가서 가시설 작업을 하고 내려오다가 미끄러지면서 약 2.3m 높이에서 바닥으로 추락하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)를 당하였다.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of “the pressure pressure pressure of the 11st century, pressure pressure of the 12nd century, pressure pressure of the 1st century, pressure of the 2nd century, and the 1st century, and the 1st century (hereinafter “pre-approval injury and disease”), and received medical care approval from the Defendant on August 7, 2017.

B. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff received an additional diagnosis of the title of the instant additional disease (hereinafter “the instant additional disease”) and applied for an approval of the additional disease to the Defendant on October 20, 2017. On December 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse the Plaintiff’s additional disease application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Defendant’s advisory opinion was “the instant additional disease cannot be objectively assessed due to subjective symptoms lakes and marshes, and the instant accident circumstance is difficult to recognize by presenting the opinion that “the instant additional disease cannot be objectively assessed due to subjective symptoms, and other parts, not the two parts and the inner parts, which may cause the instant additional disease, should have a direct causal link, because they are the existing injury and disease.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for an examination with the Defendant on April 5, 2018, but the request for examination was dismissed, and the request for reexamination was again filed with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the request for reexamination was dismissed on July 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted from around 1991 at a high construction site with a high noise, and thereafter, the Plaintiff worked at the instant workplace.