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 October 1, 1987, the Plaintiff had been employed as an automobile assembly worker in the factory B, a car company (hereinafter “non-party company”) around October 1, 1987, and has served in the painting.

B. On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered an accident where the left-hand shoulder was put on the front-hand shoulder on the part of the assembled vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”), and applied for the first medical care benefit to the Defendant on April 22, 2015, upon the diagnosis of “the front-time opening of the shoulder on the left-hand shoulder, the left-hand shoulder, and the Defendant’s first check-up infection on the left-hand shoulder.”

C. Accordingly, on June 5, 2015, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff’s first approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the business branches of the instant case on the ground that the Plaintiff’s instant injury and disease was not clearly verified in the field of image medical data, such as MRI, and that “the instant injury and injury caused by the natural aggravation of the state of the state of the fluctuation in the state of the state of the fluctuation in the state of the state of departure” is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s injury and injury in the instant injury and injury were not clearly verified.

On September 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on September 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 2-1, Eul 1, Eul 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff entered the non-party company and was in charge of the 220-day average of eight hours a day and 8 hours a day, and the plaintiff was in charge of the painting of the 220-day vehicle.

Since it seems that the average age was damaged to the upper part of the shoulder as soon as possible than the general person, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's duties and the injury and disease of this case, the disposition of this case by the defendant of this case should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Determination 1 is an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.