beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on April 8, 2016, while entering B and conducting painting assistance and shock work (Recording removal work).
B. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits by asserting that the instant injury and disease constituted occupational accidents, but the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care benefits on August 9, 2016 on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease with respect to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Harmful substances generated by the Plaintiff’s assertion in the course of painting work are highly likely to cause injury and disease by imposing a burden on kids and waste. In particular, it is highly likely that the injury and disease in this case may be caused due to the burden of kidsing at shocks in an enclosed space. Since the Plaintiff did not have any special health problem before being employed in the non-party company, the disposition of this case which did not recognize proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and disease in this case is unlawful.
(b) On December 26, 2014, working condition date: A person in charge of assistance with painting painting and shocked work period: Average 8 hours per day, average 48 hours per week (=8 hours x 6 days) : (i) as a result of the examination conducted by the Plaintiff on April 2, 2014, the examination conducted on the basis of the Plaintiff’s health examination 1.4 (1) 4 (1) ambackin-type therapy (2) e-GFR 59 blood pressure 150/100 100 and 100 ambacin infection, (2) medical examination conducted on August 20, 2014; (ii) medical examination conducted on the basis of the Plaintiff’s blood pressure 140/90 and high-tension 140/30 of blood pressure; and (iii) medical examination conducted on the second half of 2017.