1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff served as a taxi driver in B (hereinafter “instant company”) from November 17, 2014 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff joined the instant company on September 17, 2013, and was enrolled in the instant company again on November 17, 2014 after retirement from November 17, 2014, and had been serving as a personal taxi driver in the instant company on September 19, 202 to September 16, 2013), and transferred symptoms, such as having shown abnormal sounds at home on December 21:15, 2017 to C hospital, and applied for medical care benefits of this case to the Defendant on December 24, 2018.

B. On May 8, 2018, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant injury and disease was judged to be a natural progress of existing diseases caused by personal risk factors, such as high blood pressure and irregular beer, rather than by occupational factors, and proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease is not acknowledged according to the result of the deliberation by the Daegu Occupational Disease Determination Committee that no proximate causal relation is established between the instant injury and disease.”

C. On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the request for reexamination on October 25, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ordinarily driven a taxi in the instant company from p.m. to the new wall day following the following day, and was accumulated as to the period, and was under stress due to non-payment of the taxi commission. The instant company’s regular director urged the Plaintiff to pay the taxi commission and conducted excessive duties to pay the taxi commission.