1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: “The plaintiff shall be a man aged 60” and “the plaintiff shall be a man aged 60” shall be added to “the following,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article

2. The supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts that there is a proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the injury and disease in this case and the Plaintiff’s work, as it occurred due to overwork and serious mental stress in which excessive work is accumulated compared to health and physical conditions, etc. under considerable pressure on the work at a remote distance, and at the same time during the work period, serious mental stress compared to health and physical conditions.

"Occupational accident" in subparagraph 1 of Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident. In such cases, the causal relation between the employee's occupational accident and the accident shall be proved by

Although proximate causal relation is not necessarily required to be clearly proved by direct evidence, it should be proved to the extent that the proximate causal relation between work and accident is likely to be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, nature of work engaged, work environment, etc. based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant worker.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30427, May 9, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2014Du12185, Aug. 30, 2016). As seen in the first instance judgment cited by this court, it is not deemed that there was an unexpected and unexpected change in the work content to the extent that the Plaintiff’s work prior to the occurrence of the instant injury was unexpected and unexpected, in addition to the Plaintiff’s work hours, as seen in the first instance judgment cited by this court.