1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is a worker belonging to Bupyeong Factory Co., Ltd. in Korea.

On December 17, 2015, in order to close the office door to the Defendant around 14:00 on November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff removed a fixed type under the left part of the door and paper door to the face on November 30, 2015, and had the center of the Plaintiff’s body cut down and down and down.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) and applied for the first medical care benefit as “the third third handed salt, the luxed salt, and the tension (hereinafter referred to as “application injury”).”

On January 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the said application on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the applicant’s disease.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s allegation occurred due to the instant accident.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the duties and the occurrence of the accident, and the causal relationship must be attested by the party

The evidence No. 5-18 alone is insufficient to recognize that the applicant injury or disease caused by the instant accident or aggravated the existing disease beyond the natural progress, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the results of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the family number), and the medical record appraisal commission for the Ari University Hospital of this Court, the plaintiff did not observe the objective opinion, and witness the accident in this case even if other employees were in the plaintiff's neighboring position at the time of the occurrence of the accident.