1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the reasons for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant wound occurred due to an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s external force during his work, even though the degree of contribution to the injury is low, and thus, the instant wound constitutes “occupational Accident” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed the instant wound to be unlawful as it is an occupational accident irrelevant to his work.

B. Medical opinion 1) Although the Plaintiff had experienced sporadic depression from 10 years before the 10 year ago, there was no error in the results of each MDR test in 2003 and 2007. On December 17, 2012, the fact that the RI photographs on the front side of the conical signboard No. 4-5 in the 2012 appears to be a sporadic, but it seems that the fact that the left side of the hydro-nuclear dust No. 4 in the left side of the hydro-nuclear escape without any serious hydroelectric change seems to have led to acute escape by causing a significant change in the sporadicism, and that the sporadic escape by the sporadic advice of the original body and the Plaintiff of the headquarters on Dec. 17, 2012 cannot be confirmed as a change in the sporadic exposure and sporadic exposure to the sporadic exposure.

3) The doctor of the Hanam Hospital at Korea University (1) confirmed the Plaintiff’s medical records in 2003, the records of the Plaintiff’s medical examination in 2007, and the treatment experience of chronic pains in 2007, and the implementation of an surgical treatment was already conducted due to the climatic side of the climatic signboard path, and the Plaintiff’s age of 44 years was easily affected by the climatic change of the Plaintiff’s age of 44 years.