1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff served as an employee affiliated with C (hereinafter “instant workplace”) located in Ansan-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant workplace”) and was diagnosed on December 22, 2017 as “the escape certificate of a protruding signboard between the estimated 4-5” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

B. Accordingly, on February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant. However, on April 19, 2018, the Defendant did not clearly confirm the injury and disease of this case on image medical data, such as “MRI,” and the Plaintiff’s performance of inspection, etc., on the ground that it was determined that the Plaintiff’s physical accumulated burden on the part of the Defendant was not high due to the high frequency and strength of the work in the process of the inspection, etc. of the original group conducted by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is not recognized a proximate causal relation with the work of the instant injury and disease.

Based on the result of the judgment of the Tribunal for Determination of Occupational Diseases, "the disposition of this case" is "the decision not to approve the plaintiff's application for medical care benefits".

c) The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination, but the request for reexamination was dismissed on October 19, 2018. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap's 1, 2, 8, and 10, Eul's 1, and Eul's 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion’s medical opinion, it is confirmed that the instant injury and disease occurred, and the Plaintiff’s duty of inspection, etc. of the original team performed by the instant workplace was a repeated burden on the Plaintiff’s parts of the Plaintiff’s license.

Furthermore, on June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff suffered from an abortion at the instant workplace on June 1, 2017, and as a result, it can be deemed that the instant injury and disease occurred due to considerable shock on the Plaintiff’s her lusium.

Therefore, for this reason, there is a proximate causal relation between the outbreak of the injury and the Plaintiff’s service.