The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff was an employee who became a member of the assembly of electric vehicles and worked for the company B on May 19, 1987. On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on April 6, 2018, after receiving the diagnosis of an unidentified caton blood transfusion (hereinafter referred to as “the instant caton”). The Plaintiff, who was employed in the assembly at the front body assembly site of electric vehicles in the place of business, was able to have blood blood, seated on the floor of the place of business, 119 first-laned and moved back to the 119 first-lane, and was able to run in the Yangsan National University Hospital via C Hospital and D Hospital.

On July 26, 2018, the Defendant issued a non-approval of medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not change the situation of sudden work or sudden work environment, and did not confirm whether the Plaintiff’s work is short-term or long-term compared to ordinary work, and the instant injury and disease is not accompanied by an increase factor in work burden, such as harmful work environment, etc., and thus, it is presumed that the instant injury and disease is likely to have occurred due to natural dynamic diseases caused by one’s life habits and chronic diseases, and there is no proximate causal relation between work and work of the instant injury and disease.”

On January 11, 2019, the plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but a ruling dismissing the petition for review was made.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's overall statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument is legitimate. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff performed his duties with two other employees under the control of the first half of the body of the team of the U.S. 1 team, and one remaining employee after the retirement due to the retirement of one employee, etc. In fact, the injury and disease of this case occurred due to cerebral erophicosis due to rapid increase in blood pressure due to excessive work burden. Thus, the plaintiff's duties and the injury and disease of this case.