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 May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the sunlight Co., Ltd., Ltd., and was in charge of mother and child, clothing stuffing, packing, and shipping at the Leecheon Logistics Center.

B. On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that it was necessary, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant regarding the escape certificate of a conical signboard between the 4-5 main phase, the 5th phase, the escape certificate of a conical signboard between the 1,00 main phase, and the 1,00 main phase (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

C. On June 4, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that approved the Plaintiff’s medical treatment on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the work and the injury and disease when considering that the Plaintiff’s injury and disease in this case were not confirmed in light of the Plaintiff’s MRI, the degree of burden on the part of the duty is not high, and the cumulative burden is less than the period of duty performance.

The plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on November 19, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not receive medical treatment related to Heat before being employed in the above company, and that the plaintiff suffered from the injury of the disease of this case while continuously and repeatedly engaging in the work of lowering, arranging, packing, and cutting off goods in a narrow space every day after his employment. Thus, the disposition of this case which did not approve medical treatment for the plaintiff is unlawful, even though there is a proximate causal relation with the duty of the injury of this case.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff did not have any accidents that may have any special credit while working in the above company, and the head of the division in charge entered the container and directly entered the container at the time of the storage of the goods, which are acknowledged as having comprehensively taken account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No. 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 2-2, No. 2-7, and No. 2-7.