1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case are as follows, with the exception of ① (3) of Article 2 (4) of the judgment of the court of first instance (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance (4 to 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance) of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and ② (3) of the judgment of the court of

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judgment

(1) “Occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee’s occupational failure during the performance of his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident.

In such cases, the causal relationship between the worker's work and the accident shall be attested by the party asserting it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8606 Decided October 27, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, the proximate causal relation is not necessarily required to be proved by direct evidence in medical or natural science, but should be proved to the extent that the proximate causal relation between business and accident can be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, nature of work engaged and work environment based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant worker, and whether the same kind of disease of another worker working at the same workplace is transferred to the same workplace.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances as revealed by the facts acknowledged above and the evidence admitted as above, the statements No. 11 through 13, and the court’s fact inquiry with respect to the C Agricultural Cooperative, the mere evidence submitted alone resulted in only the Plaintiff’s work, which led to the occurrence of the instant injury and disease (i.e., e., cerebral cerebral cerebral tymosis).

It is difficult to presume that the existing disease has rapidly deteriorated beyond the natural progress.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion can be accepted.