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 August 7, 2008, the Plaintiff operated a bus B as a driver belonging to New High-speed Tourism Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on August 7, 2008.

B. Around 21:00 on February 14, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed by the East University Medical Center as “other brain-resistant transfusion (hereinafter “the instant injury”); and (b) filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on October 11, 2013.

C. On December 13, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and that there is no proximate causal relation with the instant branch’s work.

In response to the instant disposition, the Defendant filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on March 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including Serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered severe mental stress during several consultations with the chief of the office of the non-party company and the wage payment method of the non-party company since it had been under high blood pressure, which is an existing disease. On the day of the occurrence of the injury in this case, the snow accumulated in the bus in the bus in the weather weather on the day of the outbreak of the injury in this case, and the blood pressure increased and eventually led to the injury in this case. Thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's work and the injury in this case.

The disposition of this case on the different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. 1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and examine whether the Plaintiff, one of the grounds for the instant disposition, constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act. 2) The relevant legal doctrine and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.