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 January 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and carried out food production-related work.

On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: (a) around 10:30 on a freezing warehouse with approximately KRW 50 km, which contained freezing goods, and was loaded on a vehicle, and was transported to the vehicle, and the Plaintiff was involved in an accident in which the Plaintiff was involved, and was in a situation in which the her arms were assembled into his/her hand and could not her arms (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) caused damage (other and detailed damage, right-hand, hereinafter “the instant injury”) to the fright of the frighthead of the fright, and was under medical care with the Defendant’s approval of medical care until September 30, 2012.

B. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care with the injury and disease of the shoulder string, the right shoulder string (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). However, on December 5, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The results of verification of MRI on the grounds of the application for additional medical care reveal that the number of the re-treatments is clear, but it is reasonable to view that the quantity of the re-treatments is accompanied by a nearby axis and decentralization, and that the right shoulder string appears to have a cause of the re-examination.”

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination, but the Defendant dismissed the request on March 7, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 3, Eul 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the injury or disease of this case was caused by the accident of this case, or the change of happiness has deteriorated due to the continuous and repeated operation of heavy objects, and thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful, even though there was a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury or disease of this case.

(b) relevant legislation;