1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From April 28, 1988, the Plaintiff worked as an employee of the electric power quality assurance team belonging to the previous factory of the Defendant company. On April 22, 2010, the Plaintiff appeared to work for the Defendant company at around 06:50 on April 22, 2010, and was used as a self-employed member during the leave of absence due to the symptoms in which the Plaintiff was working before the working hours for the Defendant company and was going to walk from the engine flasing machine installed in the physical training center of the Defendant company.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the event of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as cerebral cerebral typosis, acute pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary surgery (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), the Plaintiff was sent to the Gocheon-do University Hospital, and was diagnosed as the two mepical typology and the two mepology surgery, around April 30, 2010, and around July 15, 2010, but the consciousness was not recovered until now due to cerebral typosis.

C. On May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service on the ground that the instant injury and disease constituted occupational accidents. However, on July 7, 2010, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service rendered a disposition not to grant the application for medical care benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s work was deemed to have caused excessive stress or special chronic failure in view of the Plaintiff’s work details prior to the outbreak, and that there is a cerebrovascular type, such as a maternal chronology, and there is no business relation

In this regard, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition not to grant medical care under the Daegu District Court 201Gudan1936, but the said court on October 14, 2011, it is difficult to find that there was an occupational fault or stress on the part of the Plaintiff to the extent that the causal link between the employee’s work and the accident was proved by the assertion. However, it is difficult to find that there was an occupational fault or stress on the part of the Plaintiff directly caused cerebrovascular or rapidly aggravated her maternity disease, which is an existing disease.