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 November 23, 2016, at around 07:50 on November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Gangwon-do University Hospital by the 119 first responder on the same day after receiving a report at around 09:11 on the same day, and was diagnosed by the Plaintiff’s 119 first responder on the two side of his or her occupational unknown whereabouts (non-explosion) and other primary blood pressure with his or her detailed unknown scopic (hereinafter “the instant scopic blood pressure”). (b) On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff served with the Defendant as an adjacent official in C in the Hanam-si City, and the instant scopic disease was caused by a short period of time due to a cumulative occupational burden on the part of his or her chronic tasks.

(3) On April 4, 2017, the Defendant applied for the first medical care benefit by asserting that the Plaintiff is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and even if the Plaintiff is a worker, there is no proximate causal relation between the branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s business.

The term "the disposition of this case" is referred to as "the disposition of this case below the measure of no medical care approval in accordance with the determination of the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases.

D. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against it, but was dismissed. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not have dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 16 (each entry, including a serial number, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff served as an entertainment worker in C. The Plaintiff continued to work for a long period of not less than 6 days a week and 60 hours a week, with the accumulation of chronic fruits, and with severe stress due to poor working environment, performed long-term work without any delay a day due to demand for the delivery date, and caused the instant injury.

Therefore, although the injury and disease of this case should be found to have a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's work, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff