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 19, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “self-exploital cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spacy (hereinafter “the instant injury”)” on May 18, 201, and filed an application for approval of medical care on the part of the Defendant on July 23, 2013, since the instant injury was caused by occupational malpractice and stress, and the injury was caused by occupational negligence and stress.

B. On September 10, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application for medical care in accordance with the result of deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, on the following grounds: (a) the duty performed within 24 hours prior to the occurrence of the instant injury was not different from ordinary work hours; (b) the duty or work hours were not increased by 30% or more than ordinary work hours for 7 days prior to the occurrence; and (c) the average work hours for 4 weeks prior to the occurrence were confirmed to be 56 hours per week average work hours and 59 hours per week average work hours per week prior to the occurrence; and (d) thus, a proximate causal relationship between the work branches of the instant case cannot be

C. On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 29, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap1-1, 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 59 hours and 47 minutes per week average working hours per 12 hours prior to the outbreak by serving 24 hours per day as security guards, and the average working hours per week averageed to 60 hours per week as determined by the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is due to the shortage of water surface due to physical destruction, as it was not properly guaranteed the two hours per week and 4 hours and 30 hours per hour per week, and as a result, it was not only a security service, but also a separate removal of waste.