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 June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff (B students and men) filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant asserting that the Plaintiff was diagnosed as an employee under the jurisdiction of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) operating the business of manufacturing electronic parts, electric charging machines, and electric converters, etc., and that on June 20, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for medical care benefits by asserting that the Defendant was diagnosed as the “satisfying part part of the backline

B. On September 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-approval of medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with the result of the deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Minor Occupational Diseases, on the following grounds: “In case of the Plaintiff, the physical burden is observed on the left-hand shoulder in the course of the bareboat work, but the frequency is not excessive, and the Plaintiff’s performance of the pertinent work is not long, and the degree of the accumulated physical burden on the left-hand shoulder is not high. Therefore, when comprehensively examining these matters, there is no proximate causal relation with the duties of the instant upper branch,” the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-approval of medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on February 11, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff had worked in the instant workplace for about 24 months from May 1, 2016 to May 9, 2018, but the Defendant misleads the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had worked in the instant workplace for about five months, thereby making the instant disposition.

The Plaintiff’s business establishment of the instant case, such as the repair of an automobile chargeer, medical siren packing service, etc.