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 August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was in charge of waterproof, bombing, and bombing operations at the site of the housing reconstruction improvement project in B, filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on May 26, 2017, when the brain fluoring due to male, anti-fluoring, and maleculing of a paradulous beer (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

B. Accordingly, on September 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a medical treatment approval (hereinafter “instant medical treatment approval”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “I had no sudden or sudden change on the date of the outbreak of the disease, and there was no rapid increase of working hours within one week prior to the outbreak, and the average working hours per week during 42 hours and 40 hours prior to the outbreak, respectively, are confirmed to have been 42 hours and 40 hours, respectively, and there is no occupational career and stress factor. While the Plaintiff asserted that the instant medical treatment occurred due to exposure to the organic solvents during the time of the sudden work, the exposure experience and the exposure level are extremely weak, as well as the exposure level is not known to the harmful factor causing the applicant’s disease, and it is difficult to deny the possibility of the outbreak due to inappropriate management of the urine that has been suffering during the two-year suspension (the latest two-year suspension) and the climatic infection symptoms, etc., the instant medical treatment non-approval disposition is not recognized.”

C. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee. However, a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request was issued on January 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 20 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff alleged that he had been killed in the injury of the injury of this case while on duty, and even though the injury of this case was caused by occupational injury and exposure to harmful environment, the disposition of this case which denied the relevance of duties is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act Article 4.