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 March 8, 2016, while engaging in business related to the packing of goods in a logistics warehouse, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebral cerebrs, cerebral cerebrs, and Mads (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant around June 2016, on the ground that, around 23:00, the Plaintiff was sent to the hospital and received a diagnosis of “cerebral cerebrs, cerebrs, and Mads (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).
B. On September 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff on September 23, 2016 that “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the work of the instant shopping branch on the ground that it is determined as an outbreak due to the natural transitional aggravation of an existing individual disease, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the work of the instant shopping branch, in full view of the following: (a) it was confirmed that the Plaintiff had worked at a fixed night for about seven months after the death; (b) the duty performed prior to the outbreak is not verified as well as the burden factors (e.g., a sudden change of work environment, sudden increase in the work volume; and (b) it is confirmed as having performed ordinary work; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the hours prior to the outbreak were excessive to the outbreak.”
C. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the request for examination but was dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not have any existing disease, and there is no history of smoking.
The plaintiff has carried out night work, which is more physical and mental burden than weekly work, for at least 7 months.
The plaintiff was engaged in the work of moving 600 to 700 goods a day in the wintered working environment.
Therefore, this is applicable.