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 April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff joined Korea-Masung Lease Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seongsung”) and was in charge of the collection and classification of defective parts of the automobile and the delivery of the defective parts.

B. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was treated after being diagnosed by the extreme part-time ex post facto group, etc., with a paind in the shoulder, going to the B-type outdoor department.

On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a result of the diagnosis conducted by the centering around the girresh belt and the treatment conducted after receiving the diagnosis on the part of the centering around the gire belt, and was diagnosed as a damage, etc. to the gire of the shoulder gire at a good triangulation hospital on April 10, 2014, and was subject to the restoration of the gire gire-type and the gire gire gire gire gire gire grhee gire

On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff received the check-in type and the primary fypology again at a high-ranking hospital as a re-frequency of the operating department.

C. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that “The Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits by applying for the instant injury and disease to the field, i.e., the part part of the back to the back to the back to the back to the back to the left and the left-hand shoulder.” However, on December 30, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s service burden is low, working period is not long, and it is difficult to recognize the cumulative burden of shoulder, and there is no proximate causal relation between the previous duties branch of the instant injury and injury” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition for review to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on March 5, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the contents and period of work performed by the Plaintiff while serving in the non-party company and the previous workplace, the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have taken place.