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 4, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Mesa, Inc., Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Mesa tape manufacturing business, and repeatedly moved to the drum on the left shoulder, and was diagnosed by the hospital as “the Mesa-sa-ray sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-e-s-s-s-e-s-s-s-e

B. On January 17, 2012, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the instant wound was an individual disease and the proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work was not acknowledged.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury and disease occurred by repeatedly performing the work that imposes a significant burden on the part of the instant injury and disease.

In contrast, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. 1) The "occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the worker's injury, disease, disability or death caused by occupational reason, and in order to be recognized as a occupational accident, there should be a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's accident and the occupational accident should be proved by the claimant. 2) In light of the following medical opinions, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there exists a causal relation between the worker's work and the accident.

Therefore, this case is intended for the same purport.