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 November 1, 1984, while working as the Housing Management and Affairs Institute in Yongsan-gu, Seoul as from November 1, 1984, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the injury of this case’s injury” as used in the house around November 18:2, 2017, and was diagnosed as follows: “Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s walk and movement and other details are unknown, cerebral cerebralcular and luminous disorder in the detailed range of unknown emulging and blaging, and not otherwise classified, neutic pathy, trine, oldly disorder, and mathic emulging (hereinafter “the injury of this case”).

B. On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the instant injury, but the Defendant was investigated on October 31, 2018 that “the Plaintiff had worked as the Housing Management Agency for about 33 years, and had worked for a fixed period of 40 hours a week,” and it is determined that the Plaintiff was partly subject to occupational stress due to the increase in the workload, decrease in the number of employees related to the base transfer work, and unstable retirement age extension. However, the average business hours for 4 weeks and 12 weeks prior to the instant injury did not exceed the short-term, chronic, and chronic and 40 hours according to the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification, and the duty did not exceed the scope of the instant injury, and the Defendant did not confirm that the instant injury was caused by the instant high-tension tension, which was determined to have a proximate causal relation between the instant medical care decision and the Seoul Committee for Determination on Medical Care for the reason that there was no significant causal relation between the instant injury and injury.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s argument C base moves from 2016 to Manung.