1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On July 13, 2015, while the Plaintiff was enrolled in B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and was serving as a staff sergeant, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a result of the Plaintiff’s visit to a medical institution on July 16, 2016 and applied for medical care benefits on March 7, 2017.

B. On May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and disease, since the instant injury and disease were found to be serious changes in their happiness, and the Plaintiff’s work experience of re-wing is merely two years and two months objectively confirmed, and thus inducing the applicant’s injury and disease.

C. On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Ministry of Employment and Labor on August 3, 2018, but the said Review Committee dismissed the petition on September 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to repeated work, which imposes a burden on the shoulder while performing falsing duties for a period of two years and two months.

In other words, the Plaintiff did not want to leave the hospital due to a shoulder disease on or before April 9, 2016, which was diagnosed for the first time, and there was no insufficient use of the personal extracurricular lessons in the relationship between the instant workplace and the immediately preceding workplace (from February 2013 to February 2014) before the Plaintiff’s work at the instant workplace and the instant workplace, and it is difficult to deem that there was a sking. It is difficult to view that there was a proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and the disease on the ground that the work period is shorter than that of other workers, since the Plaintiff used excessively more than five times the upper body than that of other workers during the instant workplace.

(b) fact of recognition 1.