1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On May 28, 1984, the Plaintiff joined B Co., Ltd., and was engaged in cryp work and cryp work for about 29 years and seven months from the payload to December 15, 2013. From then October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff retired on November 1, 2016.

On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff diagnosed the name of the injury and disease (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”) “In the face of the collision, the arbitrative group of the face-to-face collision, and the left-hand arrative group of the field” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant Corporation on April 27, 2018.

Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) issued a medical care non-approval disposition on August 2, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the result of the deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, on the following grounds: (a) although the burden of shouldering is partly incurred in the installation of signalling trees, signalling operations, etc. conducted through the conversion of occupation from the occupation from the year 2013; (b) the intensity and frequency of the instant work was low; (c) the instant injury was incurred after a considerable period after the completion of the contact work, which is a shoulder-bearing work; and (d) the fact that the state of the injury and disease is not clearly recognized, and there is no proximate causal relation with the work of the instant injury and the situation of the age changes without the clear recognition of the state of the injury and the fact that the causal relation with the work of the instant injury is not recognized.

On August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on August 29, 2018, but was dismissed on November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 31, 2019.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole argument shall be revoked on the ground that the disposition of this case, which was made on different premise, is unlawful, even though the plaintiff has continuously performed a big burden even after the occupational category was changed as a signal number.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The physical condition that recognized the legality of the instant disposition is the male, the key 174 cm, the weight of body 74 km, and the knife knife.