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 1, 2015, the Plaintiff joined B and served as a taxi engineer.

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter referred to as “instant injury and disease”) and sent back to a medical institution by taking roadside trees as a sudden heart stop at the off-distance intersection at the end of the Yandong-dong, Yandong-gu, Yandong-gu, Yandong-gu, Yandong-gu, Seoul, as of June 2, 2017.

B. On March 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the approval of medical care benefits with the Defendant’s application for the instant injury and injury, but the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not confirm the sudden situation following the instant injury and injury at the time of the outbreak, a sudden change in the work environment, and a increase in work volume, among the injury and injury in the instant case, the Bluar group was a disease caused by genetic factors, and the remainder of the injury and injury are deemed to have been caused, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the duties of the instant injury and injury.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that there was no low-income disease that could be a risk factor in acute fluence, such as blood pressure, blood transfusion, and urology. The plaintiff continued to work for a long period of more than one year prior to the occurrence of the injury and disease in this case in excess of 60 hours per week, which is a chronic and recognized work hours by the Ministry of Employment and Labor. At the time of the occurrence of the plaintiff, the age (55 years) exceeded 40 years, which is the average diagnosis age of Brrua and Hurua, and there was no signs similar to the disease in this case. Considering that there was no fact that the plaintiff had undergone any other signs similar to the disease in this case, the disease in this case was caused or aggravated as it overlaps with the Brruae Ma, which was accumulated to the plaintiff, and thus, caused the injury and disease in this case to more than a natural progress.