1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the injury and disease in this case occurred according to severe psychological pressure and psychological burden in the course of performing the plaintiff's excessive duties, and thus, it is concluded to the purport that there is a proximate causal relation between the injury and disease in this case and the plaintiff's duties.

However, in full view of the Plaintiff’s ordinary health conditions acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court and this court, the timing, degree, and management status of the outbreak of high blood pressure, which is an existing disease (including drinking habits and smoking power), the Plaintiff’s work and working hours, the environment at the time of the occurrence of the injury or disease, and whether the previous work quantity changes essentially, and the result of the first instance court’s entrustment of medical record appraisal, even considering the Plaintiff’s various circumstances and the materials submitted by the first instance court, the injury or disease was caused by occupational division and stress.

It shall not be deemed that it has been sufficiently proven that the natural progress or the rapid aggravation thereof has been caused.

In light of the conclusion and overall medical opinions of the Plaintiff, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s main cause of the injury to the disease in this case was merely a matter expressed in the process of emphasizing that the Plaintiff’s main cause of the injury in this case was the cause of the injury to the cerebral blood. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had a significant fact that the disease in this case had existed prior to the accident. This is more supported by the Plaintiff’s sentiment that the disease in this case’s own disease in this case occurred in connection with the cerebral blood.”