1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for medical care for an additional injury or disease on December 26, 2018, when he/she was under medical care with the first injury to “the prone part part of the shoulder, the right part of the shoulder, the right part of the back part of the left part of the shoulder, the left part of the shoulder, the left part of the pipe and net heat, the left part of the system, and the left part of the system,” due to an occupational disease (hereinafter “the instant injury or disease”).

B. Accordingly, on March 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered an additional disposition of non-approval of the injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “this case’s injury and disease is not recognized as a causal relationship between the previous injury and disease or work.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s occupational accident and the Plaintiff’s occupational accident, but the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

B. (1) Determination (1) In order to become an occupational accident under Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there must be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease. However, if the main cause of the disease was not directly related to the performance of the duties and the occupational road, etc. overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or worsens the disease, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist.

The causal relationship is not necessarily required to be proved clearly by medical or natural science, but it should be viewed that there is a proof if there is a proximate causal relationship between business and disease in consideration of all circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Du4538 delivered on July 27, 2001). However, without such degree, overwork or stress is generally caused by the climatic disease.