Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff became a member of Sama Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) and was on duty. On the right bridge that occurs with a melting pipe, the Plaintiff sent back to the hospital due to the marina, and was diagnosed as “patch perculum transfusion due to the Easter fever” (hereinafter “instant injury disease”).
Accordingly, on April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of medical care benefits that the instant injury to the Defendant constituted occupational disease, but the Defendant, following deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, issued a non-approval disposition on June 24, 2014 on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the instant injury to the business.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on March 28, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legality of each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including partial Nos. 1 and 2) in the workplace of this case. The plaintiff worked for a large number of hours in the workplace of this case during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak of the injury and disease of this case, even if the average working hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak of the injury and disease of this case do not exceed 60 hours, the number of working hours rapidly increased.
Therefore, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s work directly affected the outbreak of the instant injury, and there is no personal risk factors, such as high blood pressure, drinking, and smoking habits, and thus, the instant injury and disease constitutes occupational accidents which have deteriorated due to the Plaintiff’s work beyond natural progress, and thus, the instant disposition that did not recognize a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the instant injury and disease is unlawful.
The attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows.
In fact, on February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the instant workplace and approximately six years have passed since the outbreak of the instant injury.