1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff served as the captain of B, and has served for at least 9 years as a food master.

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed by C Hospital of C, “The Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madle, Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle, Madle Madle

B. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant recognized the disease of occupational disease in the field of an applicant injury and approved the medical treatment as to the “satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise sate satise sate satise sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate

(hereinafter referred to as "the injury and disease of this case" and "the non-approval disposition of the above non-approval during the above disposition" C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on March 21, 2018, but the request for reexamination was dismissed on June 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since there is a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s assertion as a severe cook and the instant injury and disease, the instant injury and disease should be recognized as an occupational disease, but the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. It is necessary to prove the occurrence of an occupational accident, i.e., a worker’s injury due to an occupational reason, on the part of the plaintiff asserting that the injury or disease occurred, and there is any evidence to prove that the injury or disease in this case occurred.