1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

(a) The term "occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means any injury, disease, disability or death of an employee which is caused by an occupational reason, and in order to be recognized as a disaster due to an occupational reason, the accident is caused by the occupational accident, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's accident and the duty should be proved by the claimant.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the injury or disease in this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s duty or the sudden aggravation of sediative disease, based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the health team, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 8’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4; and (b) the commission of each medical record appraisal to the Mayor of the Gao University Seoul National University and the head of the Macheon-gu Seoul National University Hospital at the first instance court; and (c) the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the fact inquiry as to the head

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the same premise, since there is no proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's business branch of this case and the plaintiff's business.

1. Even if the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle from August 2004 to July 201, 201, was partially engaged in driving as a person who imposes a burden on the trend of light, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff had a long-time work in a state of maintenance of unstable attitude in the contents of work, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff had an excessive physical burden on the part of the trend

In this Court, Abandoned Automobile Co., Ltd.