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 July 25, 2007, while the Plaintiff was employed in Samcheon-ro Co., Ltd. and was performing bus driving duties, on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that, on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits by asserting that, “In the course of operating Samcheon-ro buses, the Plaintiff started from the reclaimed land in the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan area in Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and went back 20 km a day from the Gangnam-gu, Seodo, and went back to and back 20 km a road due to various construction works, and the Plaintiff failed to properly absorb the impact on the road on the driver’s seat city.”

B. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff on the part of the Defendant: (a) “The escape certificate of the conical signboard escape (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) to recognize business relevance because the escape of the conical signboard from the video medical data, such as MRI, is not clearly confirmed; (b) but, as a result of the Judgment of the Committee on Determination of Occupational Disease, the relevant injury and disease among the injury and disease in the instant case, based on the determination of the Committee on Determination of Occupational Diseases that business relevance can be recognized as having been recognized, the instant injury and disease were not approved for medical care and approved for medical care (hereinafter “the instant disposition merely referred to as “the instant disposition”).

C. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the Defendant for the instant disposition, and the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for review on the ground that “The purpose of the examination of his own official image is to confirm the symptoms and compromises pertaining to the ex post facto escape at least 4-5 times, but there is no proximate causal relation with the instant work.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. From July 25, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the bus was operated on a bus driver’s seat with the same long distance and long-term hours as that of the bus, and the bus was operated on the longer tension.