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 July 3, 2004, the Plaintiff joined Daehan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and was engaged in the business related to the production of electronic circuits until July 31, 2005.

B. The Plaintiff, while working in the instant company, was diagnosed on June 20, 2005 by the fluoral members with severe business stress, and were diagnosed by the fluoral members (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant.

C. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff and the instant shopping district and the Plaintiff’s business. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the disposition and filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the said Committee filed a request for reexamination

6.15. The dismissal was made.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The term "occupational accident" under subparagraph 1 of Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of a worker who has caused the worker to perform his/her duties while performing his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the worker's duties and the disaster. In such cases, the causal relation between the worker's duties and the accident shall be proved by the claimant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8204 Decided January 31, 2008, etc.). In the instant case, the Plaintiff asserted that occupational stress was serious while working in the instant company, and that the same employees were suffering from the injury of the instant case by thundering the Plaintiff. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the causal link between the Plaintiff’s work performed and the injury of the instant case’s disease solely based on the descriptions of evidence No. 1 and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.