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 21, 2011, the Plaintiff joined the Seocho-gu Branch Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and was in charge of buying business for the LGDP business operators of the TRO business division.

B. On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff, at around 14:30, went to work in the company, was discovered as being used in the toilets in the company, and was sent back to the Master’s Real Estate Medical Center (hereinafter “the instant disaster”), and was diagnosed as “brain color, serious brain ties, and so on (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for medical care for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant. However, on April 22, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the instant injury and disease with his/her duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there was no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual number), the purport of each entry, and the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he had been employed by the non-party company in the state of health, and had not been affected by the disease related to the disease of this case before being employed or had not been treated.

The Plaintiff’s normal working hours were 08:30 to 18:00 after the entry. However, when the monthly beginning of each month, there are frequent cases where the Plaintiff is obliged to work for the night and new walls as a part of the adjustment and finishing work, due to the nature of the buying agency business, when there is a request for purchase of emergency materials, a request for exchange of defective materials or standard changes, etc., and when there is a request for the exchange of defective materials or standard changes, the Plaintiff was subject to extreme mental stress due to the demand for quality from the company.

Therefore, even though the injury or disease of this case occurred due to such overwork and stress, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1 on occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.