1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff (B) was employed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C") for about six years from November 19, 1984 to October 20, 198, and July 16, 1991 to July 10, 1993. The plaintiff (C) was employed in C mountain Recovery Division for about six years from July 19, 198.

The retirement was made.

After that, the Plaintiff received medical care from September 10, 2001 as the occupational accident recognized by the Plaintiff as the “Hulphane addiction, high blood pressure, and mental fissionation” (hereinafter referred to as “formerly approved injury”).

On July 2, 2015, around 22 years after C's retirement, the Plaintiff filed an additional application for the injury and disease with the Defendant as "Seongsung (three Medney diseases) and a Madne-Madne-Madne-Madne-Madne-Madne-Madne (hereinafter "the instant injury and disease").

On August 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the application on the ground that the causal relationship between the instant injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and injury

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【No ground for recognition”, “No ground for recognition”, “No evidence No. 1”, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant injury and disease were exposed to the Eulphane during his service, resulting from Eulphan addiction and the chronic pressure by the witness of Eulpha, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Medical opinion 1) Industrial accident compensation insurance advisory advice and final approval, and there is no direct causal relationship between the injury and the injury and disease in this case. chronic diseases (three years) are judged to be caused by the natural progress of the dead body infection, and the dead body infection is judged not to be directly related to the ephane poisoning or the Plaintiff’s work, and it is judged that it does not meet the additional requirements. (2) The extension of the hospital in the first instance court D Hospital and the extension of the Plaintiff’s disease in the appraisal of the first instance court had focused on suggesting lgA new disease in the pathology. It focuses on LgA new disease.