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 January 3, 1995, the Plaintiff joined the Korea District Corporation, and was in charge of automobile maintenance business from March 2005 to February 2, 2005, and was in charge of automobile maintenance business from March 2007. After which, on March 7, 2007, the Plaintiff was in charge of receiving the accident vehicle. On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “protruding signboard escape certificate, protein, protein, and protein (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant.

B. On July 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to not approve the application for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff maintained inappropriate working attitude or carried out the burden due to repetitive handling of heavy objects, etc., and that the escape of a clear estimated signboard is not confirmed, and it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the instant duties and the injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, on August 26, 1996 and February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff received approval for medical care from the Defendant for “protruding escape from the 4-5th century” and received medical care.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the “surgical signboard escape card Nos. 3-4 between the 3-4 in the company,” which had been approved by the Plaintiff due to occupational accidents, had an impact on the 3-4 in the upper part of the following: (a) the number of conical signboards escape card Nos. 4-5 in the year of the 4-5 in the year of the death of the company; and (b) it had an impact on the 3-4 in the upper part of the relevant upper part; (c) and (d) the Plaintiff’s business was added to the Plaintiff’s business, and the 2-3 in the year of the 2-3 in the year of the 3-3 in the year of the Plaintiff’s entry of the company. Therefore, there was a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s business branch and the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, this is different.