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 February 16, 2011, at the site of a local community employment project conducted by the Myeon Office of Busan Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff: (a) performed the work of shouldering the ice due to blue blue; and (b) caused a pain on the left-hand shoulder (hereinafter “instant disaster”).

B. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed by C Hospital as the injury to the land and power lines of the shoulder shoulder shoulder belts; and (b) the injury disease of the heat (the part adjacent to the back) (hereinafter “the injury disease of this case”); and (c) filed an application for medical care benefits for the injury and disease of this case with the Defendant on the 17th of the same month.

C. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the duty as the instant injury or disease,” and that the Defendant did not grant medical care to the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 4, 5, 13, and Gap No. 15-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful on the other premise that the instant accident occurred or rapidly aggravated due to its shock, while the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant accident, was fluencing the ice due to its shock, and that there was no particular error in the shoulder before the disaster.

B. In light of the result of the physical examination of the President of the Korea Human Property and Medical Center in the instant case, whether the instant injury or disease may be deemed to have been caused or aggravated due to shock during the work as alleged in the above, the physical examination of the injury or disease may be conducted in the event that the cause of the injury or disease is most shaking, repeated work, external wounds, etc., but the Plaintiff’s physical examination of the injury or disease is likely to have been conducted. However, in full view of the Plaintiff’s work period and work intensity, medical records, and radiation opinions, the cause of the injury or disease in the instant case is 95% or more of the part arising from shock, and the part arising from the work at the time of the accident is below 5%.