1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 10, 1974 to May 31, 201, the Plaintiff performed duties such as coal and engine operation at the Korea Coal Corporation B Mining Center (hereinafter “B Mining Center”). After retirement from the B Mining Center, the Plaintiff performed the duties of landscaping management under C from August 10, 2012 to September 26, 2016, the external control service business of C was conducted under the jurisdiction of the Korea Coal Corporation (hereinafter “Tan Mining Industry”).

B. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant around that time.

C. As to this, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with the result of the deliberation by the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee, stating that “the Plaintiff’s work of carrying out the landscaping management of C and giving hot water to chemical products is not a regular work, and thus, it does not always impose a continuous burden on the Plaintiff’s shoulder, but does not belong to the Plaintiff, and since the branching work and other work do not belong to the Plaintiff, there is no proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and disease in the instant case.”

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against this, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on May 11, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that: (a) the Plaintiff performed a job that imposes a physical burden on the body due to high strength in B mining centers for a long time; and (b) performed a landscaping management work under the jurisdiction of C, which was also a physical burden on the body; (c) due to cumulative performance of such work, the injury of this case was caused; and (d) thus, proximate causal relation between

Therefore, it is true.