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 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, following the diagnosis of “non-foreign cerebral cerebral Bribery and non-foreign cerebral cerebral cerebral Bribery” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) while working in the said workplace at around 20:00, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant.

B. However, on July 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to grant medical care non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff in accordance with the determination by the Committee for Determination of Minor Occupational Diseases that “the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s business branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff is not recognized.”

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against this objection, but was dismissed on November 21, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the injury or disease in this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s excessive work and the poor working environment (serious noise), but the existing disease was rapidly aggravated at a natural proceeding speed. However, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by the worker’s occupational accident during his/her work, which is caused by the worker’s occupational accident, so there should be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting it, and even if it is not necessarily required to prove clearly in medical and natural science, a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease should be inferred by considering all circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002).