1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant as “waste malicious life” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

On September 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept the instant application against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant injury and disease is not recognized as an occupational disease.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the disease of this case occurred since it was exposed to cancer substances contained in oil, steam and damp disinfectant in the course of performing the duty of cooking and cleaning for a long time at hospitals, etc., and the disease of this case occurred. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the duties and the occurrence of the accident, and the causal relationship must be attested by the party

The Plaintiff is found to have carried out assistance in and cleaning at a hospital, etc. as shown in the attached list, but it is insufficient to recognize that the injury or disease in the instant case was caused by exposure to a brick substance or aggravation of existing disease beyond natural progress, based on such circumstance and evidence as well as evidence Nos. 3-5, No. 1, 4, 6-8, and 11 (including the virtual number) of the Plaintiff, although it is recognized that the Plaintiff carried out assistance in and cleaning at the hospital, etc., as shown in the attached list, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

It cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the business and the injury and disease of the instant case.

The instant disposition from the same purport is lawful.

3. We cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion.