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 following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 26, and Eul evidence No. 2 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there are no counter-proofs:

From May 21, 191, the Plaintiff was working as a taxi engineer in B Limited Partnership (hereinafter “B”) located in H. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “emergency cerebral Bribery” (hereinafter “the instant injury disease”) after being sent to the hospital by showing symptoms, such as Abroto and ma, while driving a taxi at around 15:00.

B. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury constituted occupational accidents, and applied for medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act to the Defendant.

On March 30, 2016, the Defendant conducted a disaster investigation with respect to the Plaintiff on March 30, 2016, confirmed that the average working hours of 4 weeks prior to the outbreak of the instant injury were 53 hours and 20 minutes per week, the average working hours of 12 weeks prior to the outbreak were 57 hours and 13 minutes per week, and issued a disposition of non-approval of medical care to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2016.

C. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff instructed the Plaintiff to a department that would have been able to perform the duties of the Secretary General of C (hereinafter “C Call Center”) other than the duties of driving in B. If the Plaintiff added up the duties of B and C Call Center, the instant injury and disease in question alleged that it constitutes occupational accidents, and again applied for medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act to the Defendant.

On October 18, 2017, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be a member organization of the Plaintiff as the same workplace as B. In addition, the labor contract between B and the call center cannot be included in the cooperative work hours because it is unclear, and even if the work volume is excessive, it cannot be deemed to have been excessive by the Plaintiff because it is difficult to recognize the total work hours. Therefore, a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and disease of the instant case is recognized.