1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the main part” as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be from 20 to 7 pages (judgments) of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows:

A) The "occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an employee's injury, disease, disability or death caused by an occupational reason. In order to be recognized as a disaster caused by an occupational reason, the accident in question is caused by the occupational accident, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's accident and the occupational accident must be proved by the claimant.

The existence of a causal relationship shall be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the worker concerned, not on an average person, but on the basis of the worker's health and physical condition, and the degree of proof of a causal relationship is not necessarily required to be clearly proved in medical or natural science, but on the basis of all circumstances, if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the business and the accident in light of all the circumstances. However, it is difficult to presume that there is a causal relationship immediately where there is a causal relationship between the business and the accident, without such degree, it can be found that the overwork or stress can be generally caused by the aggravation and aggravation of the disease.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du8204 Decided January 31, 2008; 2001Du7725 Decided February 5, 2002, etc.). Furthermore, in full view of the above recognized facts and medical opinions, the head of division from the day before the month in which the Plaintiff was a disaster to the day of the accident.